National Summary of Statewide Communication Interoperability Plans

National Summary of Statewide Communication 

Interoperability Plans (SCIPs) 

February 2009 

National Summary of SCIPs 1 February 2009 

This document is a summary of the 56 SCIPs submitted to DHS in December 2007. This report 

is not intended to endorse any particular SCIP, but rather to facilitate collaboration among States 

to share best practices and innovative initiatives for the mutual benefit of all.

Table of Contents 

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. i 

1 Executive Summary.................................................................................................................1 

2 Introduction .............................................................................................................................3 

2.1 The Interoperability Continuum..................................................................................... 4 

2.2 Purpose of This Document............................................................................................. 5 

3 The Importance of Governance and Funding ..........................................................................5 

3.1 Common Governance Themes....................................................................................... 6 

3.2 Common Funding Themes............................................................................................. 9 

3.3 Key Governance and Funding Gaps and Obstacles ....................................................... 9 

3.4 Supporting Initiatives to Address Key Governance and Funding Gaps....................... 10 

3.5 Governance and Funding Best Practices...................................................................... 10 

3.6 Governance and Funding Tools ................................................................................... 13 

4 The Importance of Standard Operating Procedures...............................................................14 

4.1 Common SOP Themes................................................................................................. 14 

4.2 Key SOP Gaps and Obstacles ...................................................................................... 17 

4.3 Supporting Initiatives to Address SOP Gaps ............................................................... 17 

4.4 SOP Best Practices....................................................................................................... 18 

4.5 SOP Tools .................................................................................................................... 18 

5 The Importance of Technology .............................................................................................19 

5.1 Common Technology Themes ..................................................................................... 20 

5.2 Key Technology Gaps and Obstacles .......................................................................... 23 

5.3 Supporting Initiatives Addressing Technology Gaps................................................... 23 

5.4 Technology Examples.................................................................................................. 24 

5.5 Technology Tools ........................................................................................................ 26 

6 The Importance of Training and Exercises............................................................................27 

6.1 Common Training and Exercises Themes ................................................................... 28 

6.2 Key Training and Exercises Gaps and Obstacles......................................................... 29 

6.3 Supporting Initiatives Addressing Training and Exercise Gaps .................................. 30 

6.4 Training and Exercises Best Practice........................................................................... 31 

6.5 Training and Exercises Tools....................................................................................... 31 

7 The Importance of Usage.......................................................................................................32 

7.1 Common Usage Themes .............................................................................................. 32 

7.2 Key Usage Gaps and Obstacles ................................................................................... 32 

7.3 Supporting Initiatives Addressing Training & Exercise Gaps ..................................... 33 

7.4 Usage Best Practice...................................................................................................... 34 

8 Conclusion and Future Progress ............................................................................................34 

Appendix ........................................................................................................................................36 

A. SAFECOM SCIP Criteria Compliance Matrix ................................................................ 36 

B. Background Information .................................................................................................. 39 

C. Supporting Plans and Reports .......................................................................................... 40 

D. NECP Initiatives............................................................................................................... 44 

National Summary of SCIPs i February 2009 

This document is a summary of the 56 SCIPs submitted to DHS in December 2007. This report 

is not intended to endorse any particular SCIP, but rather to facilitate collaboration among States 

to share best practices and innovative initiatives for the mutual benefit of all.

` 

1 Executive Summary 

One of the most important issues facing the emergency response community today is 

communications interoperability, commonly defined as the ability of public safety emergency 

responders to communicate with whom they need to, when they need to, as authorized. During 

emergency response scenarios such as natural disasters, terrorist acts, and day-to-day operations, 

responding agencies are often disadvantaged by the inability to communicate or share critical 

voice and data information with other jurisdictions or disciplines. The Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) Office of Emergency Communications (OEC) recognizes that technology plays a 

critical role in the achievement of communications interoperability; however, it remains equally 

important that the procedures and training emergency responders use are interoperable and 

compatible as well. Seamless communications interoperability will be achieved when emergency 

response officials can be deployed anywhere in the country, use his or her own radio to 

communicate with other responders, and use the compatible standard operating procedures 

(SOPs) he or she has been trained on in their respective jurisdictions. 1 

Statewide Communication Interoperability Plans (SCIPs) are a critical step in achieving 

communications interoperability not only within each State, but also across the country. The 

SCIP is a mechanism to align emergency responders at all levels in the State on a future vision for 

communications interoperability. Further, it serves as a roadmap for all agencies and 

jurisdictions in terms of the direction for moving forward and addressing communications 

interoperability issues at the State, regional, 2 local, and tribal level. In early 2007, DHS issued a 

set of criteria for SCIPs in the Recommended Federal Grant Guidance for Emergency Response 

Communications and Interoperability Grants for Fiscal Year (FY) 2007, 3 requiring that by the 

end of 2007, each State must develop and adopt a SCIP as a stipulation for receiving future 

homeland security grant funds for communications interoperability initiatives. In support of the 

grant guidance and to further explain the criteria, in March 2007 DHS provided the Statewide 

Interoperability Planning Guidebook designed to be used as a step-by-step guide to develop a 

SCIP. By December 2007, all 56 States and territories submitted SCIPs to DHS, all of which 

were approved by DHS in April 2008. 

An analysis of all 56 SCIPs highlighted the common themes, trends, and best practices found 

throughout the Nation. These commonalities have been outlined in this document along the lanes 

of the Interoperability Continuum 4 —governance, SOPs, technology, training and exercise, and 

usage. Examples of common strategies found throughout this document include: 

Governance 

• Expand, enhance, and formalize the communications governance model. 

• Hire a full-time Statewide Interoperability Coordinator. 

• Implement the SCIP and conduct a review to update the plan. 

• Develop a statewide non-grant funding strategy to leverage and secure additional shortand 

long-term sustainment funding and resources. 

1 Department of Homeland Security’s Statewide Interoperability Planning Guidebook. March 2007. 

http://www.safecomprogram.gov/NR/rdonlyres/18F02413-CC4D-41B2-9097- 

F5FF04E080C7/0/StatewidePlanningGuidebookFINAL.pdf 

2 Regional refers to regions within a State. 

3 Recommended Federal Grant Guidance for Emergency Response Communications and Interoperability 

Grants for FY 2007. http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/statewideplanning/ 

4 Interoperability Continuum. http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/tools/continuum/default.htm 

National Summary of SCIPs 1 February 2009

` 

• Develop, implement, and communicate multi-jurisdictional, multi-disciplinary 

agreements necessary for the governance of interoperable communications. 

SOPs 

• Develop and implement National Incident Management System (NIMS)-procedures, 

specific Incident Command System (ICS)-related steps, and any associated qualifications 

into all SOPs. 

• Develop and update SOPs in Tactical Interoperable Communications Plans (TICPs). 

• Develop and promote common nomenclature guidance. 

• Adopt and immediately utilize plain language speech communications in compliance 

with NIMS requirements. 

• Develop a formal statewide SOP review process to ensure that all emergency response 

agencies have up-to-date SOPs. 

Technology 

• Conduct a statewide capabilities assessment which includes critical communications 

equipment and related interoperability issues. 

• Develop or enhance strategic technology reserves (STRs). 

• Develop shared statewide or regional radio systems supporting multiple Federal, State, 

and local agencies. 

• Install statewide or regional fixed interoperability channel infrastructure. 

Training & Exercise 

• Incorporate interoperable communications into all existing and future training and 

exercise programs. 

• Conduct an in-depth gap analysis to identify current training needs. 

• Continue regularly scheduled NIMS/ICS training. 

• Seek innovative solutions to deploy training standards, procedures, and systems for all 

facets of interoperable communications awareness. 

Usage 

• Conduct regular testing to identify operational or technical impediments to interoperable 

communications. 

• Utilize plain language speech communications in compliance with NIMS requirements. 

• Achieve daily usage of a statewide network among all responders, and implement weekly 

testing with documentation of users on the system. 

• Develop programs to provide users with “How To” guides for specific radio equipment. 

This document also summarizes how the SCIPs currently have strategies that will align to the 

National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP). 5 The NECP provides recommended 

initiatives to guide emergency response providers and relevant government officials in making 

measurable improvements in emergency communications capabilities. 

With the development and approval of all 56 SCIPs, the Nation has arrived at a crucial launching 

point for coordinating and improving statewide communications interoperability and planning 

efforts. This document presents the collective assessment of the current state of the Nation’s 

emergency response interoperable communications and identifies initiatives to guide the Nation, 

States, localities, and tribes towards improved interoperable communications. 

5 National Emergency Communications Plan. 

http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/natlemergencycommplan/ 


` 

2 Introduction 

SCIPs are locally-driven, multi-jurisdictional, and multi-disciplinary strategic plans to address 

statewide interoperability. The SCIPs define a strategy to improve statewide interoperable 

communications and will serve several purposes well beyond just meeting the SCIP requirement 

outlined by DHS. All 56 States and territories submitted SCIPs for communications 

interoperability, which were approved, marking a critical milestone in breaking down the barriers 

of the past and establishing a roadmap for the future of interoperability. Each SCIP reflects the 

complexity of the State’s 6 interoperable communications environment as measured against all 

lanes of the Interoperability Continuum: governance, SOPs, technology, training and exercises, 

and usage as shown in Figure 1 below. Successful advancement of communications 

interoperability depends upon the improvement of all five of the Interoperability Continuum 

critical success factors (i.e., governance, SOPs, technology, training and exercises, and usage) 

also known as “lanes.” Each SCIP defines a vision and mission for statewide emergency 

response communications interoperability in the State; reflects the current status of State, 

regional, and local agency systems and challenges; and identifies key initiatives moving the State 

toward integrated statewide communications interoperability. 

In March 2007, DHS issued a set of criteria for SCIPs in the Recommended Federal Grant 

Guidance for Emergency Response Communications and Interoperability Grants for Fiscal Year 

(FY) 2007. These criteria were developed in support of Section I.C.5 of the 2006 Homeland 

Security Grant Program (HSGP), which states “by the end of 2007, each State must develop and 

adopt a statewide communications plan” as a stipulation for receiving future homeland security 

grant funds for communications interoperability initiatives. In support of the grant guidance and 

to further explain the criteria, DHS provided the Statewide Interoperability Planning Guidebook 

designed to be used as a step-by-step guide to develop a communications interoperability 

strategic plan. The guidebook helped States respond to the statewide criteria with an actionable 

path forward for key stakeholders and leadership. The SCIPs were due from the States to DHS 

on December 3, 2007. 

OEC facilitated a peer review process to evaluate and provide feedback on the SCIPs in February 

2008. Each SCIP was evaluated by three to six peers from the public sector (Federal, State, local, 

and tribal) having expertise or experience with emergency operations, interoperable 

communications, emergency response, or grants management. The peers received training on 

how to review the SCIPs according to SCIP Weighted Evaluation Criteria. 7 The peer review 

feedback was designed to assist States in continuing to enhance the SCIPs. All 56 SCIPs were 

approved by DHS in April 2008. 

The development and approval of the SCIPs has been a key milestone for the Nation moving 

forward in 2008. The States set a path forward to improve communications interoperability and 

help OEC in determining the current status of the Nation’s interoperability capabilities and 

strategies to improve those capabilities. 

6 State refers to State and territory. 

7 The SCIP Criteria and Weighted Evaluation Criteria were developed in collaboration with Federal, State, 

and local stakeholder working groups. http://www.safecomprogram.gov/NR/rdonlyres/CD99AACD-E6F2- 

4396-8112-9124962CDC0B/0/SCIPWeightedEvaluationCriteriaFINAL090507.pdf 


` 

2.1 The Interoperability Continuum 

DHS’s SAFECOM program, with input from State and local practitioners, developed the 

Interoperability Continuum to help the emergency response community and policy makers plan 

and implement interoperability solutions. The tool identifies five critical success factors that 

must be addressed to achieve interoperability: governance, SOPs, technology, training and 

exercises, and usage of interoperable systems. The degree of interoperability depends upon the 

improvement of all five of these lanes—no one factor (e.g., technology) is the solution to 

achieving interoperability. 

Figure 1: Interoperability Continuum 

As an evolving tool, the Interoperability Continuum supports the National Preparedness Strategy 

and aligns with national frameworks including, but not limited to, the National Response 

Framework (NRF), NIMS, the NECP, The National Communications Capabilities Report 

(NCCR), and the 2006 National Interoperability Baseline Survey. To maximize the 

Interoperability Continuum’s value to the emergency response community, SAFECOM recently 

updated the tool through a consensus process involving practitioners; technical experts; and 

representatives from Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies (shown above in Figure 1). It was 

revised to address both data and voice aspects of the technology lane. 

The Statewide Interoperability Planning Guidebook recommended the States use the 

Interoperability Continuum to assist in documenting a comprehensive and complete view of the 

current communications and interoperability environment. Most States presented their current 

capabilities using the five lanes of the Interoperability Continuum. Jurisdictions across the 

Nation continue to use the Interoperability Continuum to track progress in strengthening 

interoperable communications. 


` 

2.2 Purpose of This Document 

The purpose of this National Summary of SCIPs is to provide a consolidated analysis of the 56 

SCIPs by highlighting common themes, trends, and best practices found throughout the Nation. 

The document does not endorse any particular SCIP, but rather demonstrates the complexity of 

the interoperable communications environment while creating an awareness of the commonalities 

found within it. Lastly, this document serves as a tool for every Statewide Interoperability 

Coordinator to understand the national emergency response communications environment as well 

as to inform future OEC projects, tools, and technical assistance efforts. 

The document is organized according to the Interoperability Continuum; highlighting the 

importance of each component, the themes and gaps captured throughout the 56 SCIPs, and 

common next steps moving the Nation toward improved emergency response communications 

interoperability. 

3 The Importance of Governance and Funding 

Establishing a strong governance structure is one of the most critical aspects to successful multijurisdictional 

and multi-disciplinary interoperable communications. Determining a shared vision 

and collaborative decision-making process will support interoperability efforts to improve 

communication, coordination, and cooperation across disciplines and jurisdictions. 8 Governing 

bodies for communications interoperability efforts are essential to ensure that focus and direction 

is maintained, as well as to provide guidance and assistance as necessary. 

OEC recognizes that all States are unique and have diverse governance requirements; therefore, 

no “one-size-fits-all” governance structure exists. There are, however, critical components to a 

successful governance structure that were identified through best practices and lessons learned. 

For more information on the information highlighted in this section, please refer to the OEC 

document Establishing Governance to Achieve Statewide Communications Interoperability: A 

Guide for Statewide Communication Interoperability Plan (SCIP) Implementation. 9 

As part of the Governance Section, the SCIP Criteria recommended States “identify committed 

sources of funding, or the process for identifying and securing short- and long-term funding” and 

to “identify a plan for the development of a comprehensive funding strategy.” Congress has 

made interoperability a priority through increased levels of funding available to State and local 

governments. While these grants are indeed beneficial to States, funding is never guaranteed nor 

is it long-term. Dedicated and consistent funding is able to complement existing grant funds and 

serve as a mechanism for sustaining existing interoperability investments; it can also be set aside 

to invest in future interoperability efforts. States are in a constant search for sources of adequate 

funding, an issue that has become an ever-increasing priority across the Nation. 

8 Department of Homeland Security Office for Interoperability and Compatibility Statewide 

Interoperability Planning Guidebook. March 2007. 

9 Establishing Governance to Achieve Statewide Communications Interoperability: A Guide for Statewide 

Communication Interoperability Plan (SCIP) Implementation. 

http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/library/technology/1416_establishinggovernance.htm 


` 

3.1 Common Governance Themes 

OEC reviewed the governance sections of all 56 SCIPs and found that many States have longestablished 

Statewide Interoperability Governing Bodies (SIGBs). 10 The SCIP review found 

various approaches to establishing a statewide governance structure. There are 56 individual 

governance structures and many of them work sufficiently to provide strategy and direction for 

the communications interoperability effort; however, some structures need strengthening to be 

more effective. Detailed below are the most common governance models that OEC deduced 

from the SCIPs. While several States had formal governance structures in place and several other 

States had informal governance structures currently in place, four primary governance structures 

emerged. 11 

While the SCIPs revealed many successful approaches, some States struggle to ensure that multijurisdictional 

and multi-disciplinary representation on the statewide governance structures is 

developed properly. This section provides a snapshot of the common statewide governance 

structures documented within the various SCIPs. 

3.1.1 Subject-Specific Approach 

The Subject-Specific Approach (also known as the Subject Matter Expert [SME] approach) to 

statewide governance is the most common approach reported in the SCIPs. This approach 

demonstrates a strong focus on statewide communications interoperability committees working 

on specific issues such as spectrum management, procurement, training, SOP development, and 

program management (shown in Figure 2 below). 

Subject-Specific Approach Highlights: 

• Interoperability committees are formed based upon SME areas. For example: 

o Technology (Equipment) 

o Operations (Tactical) 

o Program Management (Coordination/SCIP) 

• Regional support/input is obtained via regional members’ inclusion on the various SME 

committees and working groups. 

o A regional committee in-between the working group level and the SME level 

may exist. 

• The structure is SME-focused as opposed to region-focused. 

10 Different States have different names for their governing bodies, such as Statewide Interoperability 

Executive Committee (SIEC). SIBG is a generic name for governing bodies. 





` 

Figure 2: Subject-Specific Approach 

3.1.2 Regional Approach 

The Regional Approach to statewide governance is the second most common approach reported 

in the SCIPs. This approach establishes individual interoperability committees organized by 

State-defined regions. Each region may have its own committees and working groups (shown in 

Figure 3 below). 

Regional Approach Highlights: 

• Interoperability committees are organized by regions as defined by the State. 

o Many States utilized existing regional structures (i.e. Homeland Security regions, 

emergency response regions, Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) regions, 

regions based on existing memorandums of understanding [MOUs], etc.) 

• Each region focuses solely on individual interests at the regional level. 

• Each region may form individual working groups or SME committees for their region. 

Figure 3: Regional Approach 

3.1.3 Conventional Approach 

The Conventional Approach to statewide governance utilizes a traditional hierarchy structure and 

is often found in smaller States and territories that may have fewer layers of government. The 

hierarchy tends to consist of the governor, a statewide interoperability governance body (e.g., 

SIGB), an interoperability advisory committee, and one or two working groups as deemed 

necessary (shown in Figure 4 below). 

Conventional Approach Highlights: 

• Often observed in States with: 

o Few levels of government 

– Many villages 

– Few State agencies 


` 

– Heavy Federal or military presence 

– No existing regionalized structure in place 

o Little resources available for interoperability efforts 

• The hierarchy supports just one committee at the State and local level that is responsible 

for all interoperable planning efforts. 

Figure 4: Conventional Approach 

3.1.4 Leveraged Approach 

The Leveraged Approach to statewide governance is seen when there is an existing State agency 

management hierarchy that is utilized as the statewide interoperability committee (shown in 

Figure 5 below). Interoperability planning merges into or is a function of existing State agency 

responsibilities. Typically, directors or agency executives form the membership of the statewide 

interoperability committee(s). 

Leveraged Approach Highlights: 

• This governance approach was reported in only a few States where: 

o An existing State agency structure is utilized 

o Agencies have “dotted line responsibility” to the interoperability committee 

o The agency directors or executives usually comprise the interoperability working 

group or committees 

• The responsibility for statewide interoperability is absorbed by an existing management 

hierarchy. 

Figure 5: Leveraged Approach 

Each of the observed approaches to statewide governance presents its own unique advantages, 

concerns, and recommendations. As stated previously, no “one-size-fits-all” model exists. 


` 

Leveraging the information reported in the SCIPs; however, provided OEC with an understanding 

of how to better assist the States along the road to establishing and maintaining efficient and 

effective interoperability governance. For more information on these types of models, please 

refer to OEC’s Establishing Governance to Achieve Statewide Communications Interoperability: 

A Guide for Statewide Communication Interoperability Plan (SCIP) Implementation. 

Listed below are key components identified in the SCIPs and the number of States that met each 

component. If the State did not meet the component at the time of SCIP development, most 

States included it as an initiative in its SCIP. 

Governance 

Fully 

Implemented 

Plan to 

Implement 

Governance structure has: 

Executive/Legislative Authority 38 4 

Charter 27 11 

Representation from each public safety discipline 35 2 

Representation across each level of government 21 1 

Representation from each region within the State/territory 24 3 

Full-time Statewide Communications Interoperability Coordinator 24 19 

Note: For a few States it was unclear if they implemented/plan to implement the above key components. 

3.2 Common Funding Themes 

Across all States, a lack of funding is one of the most significant gaps in achieving statewide 

communications interoperability. All States have opportunities to fund their interoperability 

efforts through grants at the Federal or State level; however, funding from grants is not a 

committed source and cannot sustain interoperability efforts in the long-term. Since grants are 

currently the primary sources of funding for many States, this can be an obstacle to the 

implementation of the SCIPs. 

States understand the challenge of acquiring ongoing funding, as 44 of the 56 States and 

territories have initiatives that deal directly with this issue. The majority of States are aware of 

the need to identify sources of funding other than grants to secure a financial base. Many States 

also realize the benefit of having a subcommittee that solely works to establish ongoing funding 

for statewide communications interoperability. For States that do not have a committed source of 

funding or a funding subcommittee, many recognize the need to develop a strategic plan for 

funding. Although funding is a challenge, the majority of States are beginning to develop 

approaches to secure ongoing funding to advance communications interoperability. 

3.3 Key Governance and Funding Gaps and Obstacles 

Listed below are the common governance and funding-related gaps and obstacles OEC identified 

in the SCIPs. These gaps and obstacles address many of the missing components required to 

establish a robust and highly productive governance structure complete with common goals and 

processes providing strategic direction and strategic interoperability initiatives. 

• Governance bodies do not have formal structures; frequently act in an ad hoc capacity; 

and many times lack membership inclusive of locals, across jurisdictions and disciplines, 


` 

in a meaningful way. In addition, many States lack regional interoperability committees 

or processes for local jurisdictions to work with the SIGB. 

• Emergency communications strategic planning efforts vary in scope and often do not 

address the operability and interoperability concerns of all relevant stakeholders. 

• Communications is not seen as a priority by many agencies; thus, resources are not 

allocated for participating in planning activities. 

• Greater Federal participation is needed in State, regional, and local governance and 

planning processes to strengthen the information flow and coordination. 

• Many States do not have a full-time Statewide Interoperability Coordinator, or equivalent 

position, to focus on the activities needed to drive change. 

• Few formal agreements such as MOUs or memorandums of agreement (MOAs) have 

been established between jurisdictions, tribes, regions, States, and bordering countries 

ensuring acceptance, agreement, and consistency of actions relative to interoperability. 

• Short- and long-term legislative support in the form of funding and legislation is not 

consistent. 

3.4 Supporting Initiatives to Address Key Governance and Funding Gaps 

Each State developed strategic initiatives to address governance gaps in their States. The top 

common governance initiatives found in the SCIPs include: 

• Expand, enhance, and formalize the communications governance model. 

• Establish governance structures to support a system of systems. 

• Hire a full-time Statewide Interoperability Coordinator. 

• Assign a designated Statewide Interoperability Coordinator to each planning region. 

• Implement the SCIP and conduct a review to update the plan. 

• Develop a statewide non-grant funding strategy to leverage and secure additional shortand 

long-term sustainment funding and resources. 

• Continue ongoing development of port, transit, and transportation interoperable 

communications efforts. 

• Develop, implement, and communicate multi-jurisdictional, multi-disciplinary 

agreements necessary for the governance of interoperable communications. 

• Develop interoperable communications strategies with neighboring States and countries. 

• Obtain and sustain legislative support on interoperability matters. 

• Develop, review, and update TICPs for the State and each region or county. 

3.5 Governance and Funding Best Practices 

3.5.1 Governance Best Practices 

Because each State has different governance needs and priorities, listed below are some best 

practice areas pulled from the SCIPs. It should be noted that the selected best practice areas have 

varied approaches, and represent both small and large States and territories. 

The States and territory selected are: 

State Best Practice Area Notables 

Indiana 

Interstate 

Coordination 

• Indiana shows inter-State coordination - spearheaded the Midwest 

Public Safety Communications Consortium to include Michigan, Ohio, 

Illinois, and Kentucky. 


` 

State Best Practice Area Notables 

Nebraska Regional Structure • The State is organized into eight regions with the State agencies as the 

ninth region considered as peers. 

New 

Jersey 

Regional Structure • The State is divided into four Homeland Security Regions with each 

region having an active interoperability Regional Working Group that 

meet to determine the needs of each area in accordance with guidelines 

established at the State level and specific regional needs. 

Statewide Leadership • New Jersey has a full-time interoperability coordinator in a Cabinet-level 

position, reporting directly to the Governor. The Interoperability 

Coordinator is the single point of contact for all interoperability issues 

throughout New Jersey. 

Oklahoma Regional Structure • The State uses a regional governance structure that serves as the 

primary source for local interoperability efforts. Membership includes 

one representative from each of the Oklahoma homeland security 

regions as well as members from multiple jurisdictions and disciplines 

from across the State. 

Puerto 

Rico 

Regional Structure • Puerto Rico gradually shifted from a territory-wide approach to a more 

regional approach to promote an atmosphere of cooperation and create 

partnerships within the emergency response agencies. 

Texas Working Groups • Texas uses temporary, narrowly chartered working groups for specific 

tasks, such as conducting research and collecting data, or to draft 

templates for required SCIP documents such as the Regional 

Interoperable Communications Plan. These various working groups are 

created when needed and suspended when their task is accomplished. 

Subject matter experts from multiple disciplines and regions are 

integrated into the working groups to provide true statewide 

representation. 

Virginia 

Working Groups 

Statewide Leadership 

• Virginia establishes Initiative Action Teams (IATs) as needed to assist in 

the implementation of SCIP initiatives. The IATs are informal groups of 

local and regional public safety practitioners and other stakeholders as 

needed, assembled for a limited timeframe to work towards the 

accomplishment of a specific initiative. 

• The State served as the national governance model prior to SCIP 

requirements and their model is similar to the SAFECOM program 

governance model. 

3.5.2 Funding Best Practices 

An ongoing and dependable source must be identified for States to continue advancing 

interoperability. Grants serve as short-term solutions, but are not committed for the long-term 

effort. The following information some examples of States’ alternatives for long-term funding: 

Long-term Funding Best Practice 

State Examples 

9-1-1 surcharge fees In Connecticut, funds from the Department of Public Safety 9-1-1 

program support Connecticut’s goal of providing a high-speed 

connection for all of the Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) 

within the State. 

Tower leasing to private telecommunications 

companies 

To support operational and maintenance costs, Delaware Code 

allows the State to collect revenue by leasing tower space to 

private telecommunications companies. 


` 


Local tax revenues and Special Purpose Local 

Option Sales Tax (SPLOSTS) 

Legislative appropriations 

Use of State and local resources 

User fees and rate recovery programs 

Incentives for localities 

Local city and county property taxes 

State Radio subscriber funding 

Tax levies 

Bonds and general funds 

Dedicated Bureau of Motor Vehicle (BMV) 

funds 


One of Georgia’s main sources of funding is from jurisdiction and 

agency taxes, which are obtained through local tax revenues and 

SPLOSTS. 

Many States are funded through legislative appropriations from 

State and local budgets. 

In Maryland, State agencies and local jurisdictions are 

encouraged through SIGB outreach efforts to fund interoperability 

projects from their own resources to ensure their sustainability. 

Michigan, Ohio, South Carolina, and Utah use user fees and rate 

recovery programs to collect funding by charging a user fee to 

subscribers on the statewide or regional-wide systems. 

Minnesota’s Legislature provided a number of financial incentives 

for local governments to integrate onto their statewide 

emergency response communications system, including: 1) 

providing a sales tax exemption for local equipment acquired to 

integrate onto the backbone; 2) creating specific bonding 

authority outside levy limits and specifically designating “public 

safety communications” on property tax statements, and 3) 

providing for partial funding for local enhancements necessary to 

provide additional coverage or capacity where needed. 

In addition to fees on cell and landline phones, funds generated 

from local or county property taxes in North Dakota go toward 

local and regional PSAPs for the support of voice and data 

communications requirements. 

North Dakota collects additional funding for State Radio from all 

subscribers for Mobile Data Terminals (MDT) and the Law 

Enforcement Teletype System (LETS) to operate and maintain 

the State Radio infrastructure that provides these services. 

In Ohio, individual county municipal funds including tax levies are 

used as alternatives to fund the implementation and maintenance 

of shared regional and countywide systems. 

For long-term funding, Pennsylvania plans to utilize funds derived 

from the operating budget of the Office of Public-Safety Radio 

Services (OPRS). The State will continue to maintain an 

equitable distribution of future Homeland Security grants and 

other potential grant funds commensurate with the needs of the 

State and counties. Bonds and county general funds may be 

available for local entities to use for the costs of upgrades and 

future long-term interoperability funding such as capital 

replacement, repair, systems upgrades, and ongoing training. 

In Indiana, an existing BMV transactions fee not only funded 

nearly 50% of the system build out, but also guarantees 

maintenance and operational revenue until 2019. No new taxes 

or fees were added, and agencies pay no user fees to operate on 


` 



the statewide system. 

3.6 Governance and Funding Tools 

The following governance and funding tools are available on the SAFECOM website: 12 

Establishing Governance to Achieve Statewide Communications Interoperability: A Guide 

for Statewide Communication Interoperability Plan (SCIP) Implementation 13 

This document presents information about the role, system, and operations of statewide governing 

bodies that are charged with improving communications interoperability across a State. Without 

establishing a mandate, this national guide will assist States in developing and/or refining their 

governance methodologies and systems. 

Creating a Charter for a Multi-Agency Communications Interoperability Committee 14 

This tool provides guidance to develop charter documents for multi-agency communications 

interoperability committees. The document is organized in a recommended charter structure with 

suggested headings for each section. Each section poses questions to consider when writing 

content for a charter. Sample paragraphs are included for reference. 

Interoperability Business Case: An Introduction to Ongoing Local Funding 15 

This document helps emergency response officials develop a compelling business case by 

presenting steps and considerations to follow to tap into critical local funding sources for 

interoperability efforts. 

Writing Guide for a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 16 

This document provides guidance to develop an MOU. The document is organized in a 

recommended MOU structure with suggested headings for each section. Each section poses 

questions to consider when writing content for an MOU. Sample paragraphs are included for 

reference. 

How to Guide for Funding State and Local Public Safety Wireless Networks 17 

This guide provides emergency response professionals and government managers with an 

introduction to the key steps in developing and implementing a comprehensive strategy for 

funding wireless networks. 

12 SAFECOM Program. www.safecomprogram.gov 




14 Creating a Charter for a Multi-Agency Communications Interoperability Committee. 

http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/library/interoperabilitybasics/1290_creatinga.htm 

15 Interoperability Business Case: An Introduction to Ongoing Local Funding. 

http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/library/grant/1336_interoperabilitybusiness.htm 

16 Writing Guide for a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). 

http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/library/interoperabilitybasics/1288_writingguide.htm 

17 How to Guide for Funding State and Local Public Safety Wireless Networks. 

http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/library/grant/1061_HowTo.htm 


` 

4 The Importance of Standard Operating Procedures 

SOPs are formal written guidelines or instructions for emergency management that detail how 

equipment and resources should be consistently and effectively used. SOPs typically have both 

operational and technical components and enable emergency responders to act in a coordinated 

fashion across disciplines in the event of an emergency. Effective collaboration through 

coordinated plans, protocols, and procedures are just as important, if not more important, than the 

equipment itself. With the Federal government’s focus on NIMS compliance throughout States, 

the need for “process” fixes to communications systems helps bring SOPs to the forefront of the 

interoperability challenge. 

Formal and regularly updated SOPs should exist at the Federal, State, regional, local, and tribal 

levels. They should incorporate all necessary user agencies, address communications needs 

across a range of emergency events (e.g., small- to large-scale), and be communicated and 

available to the necessary users. 

4.1 Common SOP Themes 

Documentation, and even awareness of communications SOPs, varies widely among emergency 

response agencies. Some cities and towns have no communications SOPs in place – formal or 

informal, written or unwritten. Other cities and towns have informal, unwritten agreements, and 

still others implemented formal, fully documented SOPs. 

Monitoring and oversight of the SOPs varies across the Nation. Some States have a process by 

which an individual or group of individuals serve as the clearinghouse to establish and execute 

the process by which statewide SOPs are developed, managed, maintained, and upgraded. In 

other instances, SOPs are reinforced and practiced at the agency user-level as a part of tabletop 

and field training exercises. The application and use of SOPs are monitored and managed by user 

agencies through their communications centers and dispatch operations, as well as through 

reports to dispatch and communications centers from radio users in the field. Follow up on SOP 

concerns or problems are addressed on an agency-to-agency basis. 

The following information describes the common themes found throughout the SOP sections. 

4.1.1 Mutual Aid SOPs 

The most consistent SOPs mentioned in the SCIPs are mutual aid agreements that exist between 

agencies and counties, and include interoperable communications. These are SOPs that define 

practices for the use of statewide interoperability channels. Many mutual aid agreements exist 

between counties, municipalities, tribal nations, and non-governmental organizations throughout 

the States. 

4.1.2 TICPs 

Unlike the SCIPs, which focus on strategic planning, the TICPs focused on the tactical and 

operational requirements for rapidly establishing on-scene, incident-based mission critical voice 

communications. TICPs document the interoperable communications resources available within 

the designated area, who controls each resource, and what rules of use or operational procedures 

exist for the activation and deactivation of each resource. In support of DHS’s effort to 

strengthen interoperable communications capabilities and processes, each Urban Area that 

received FY 2005 UASI funding (as well as designated metropolitan areas in States not having a 


` 

UASI) was required to develop a TICP. Since the TICP initial preparation, many States began 

developing statewide TICPs or TICPs for other regions within their States. 

Many States noted that much of the detailed information on their interoperable communications 

SOPs is documented in their TICPs. In some instances, it was noted that the TICPs serve as the 

only collection site for the interoperable communications SOPs established and documented 

within their State. As an example, the TICPs address: 

• Radio cache activation, inventory control, de-activation, and conflict resolution 

• Shared channel activation and de-activation 

• Gateway activation, coordination, and de-activation 

• Shared system talk group prioritization 

4.1.3 Locally Developed SOPs 

Because most emergency response incidents are local, many States promote the development of 

SOPs that govern daily usage among responder disciplines at the regional level, which eventually 

form the basis for a standardized, statewide set of SOPs. These locally-based SOPs are 

coordinated with their respective operational areas or regions. Subsequently, some localities 

develop MOUs and SOPs with participating agencies for the use of the interoperable techniques, 

protocols, and technologies such as gateways or radio caches. The regions communicate the 

SOPs through their existing governance structure and document the process and protocols in their 

TICPs. Localities are also responsible for maintaining and updating SOPs. As new technology is 

deployed or as events highlight possible improvements, agencies should update or amend 

procedures. 

Some States indicated that aside from the major metropolitan areas within the State, most 

localities have not developed or have minimally documented comprehensive multi-jurisdictional 

and multi-disciplinary SOPs that address interoperability. Depending on the locality, SOPs may 

address interoperability only as it applies to incident response, channel allocation, or 

interoperability between disciplines within the same locality. A few jurisdictions and agencies 

have formal discussions and move toward joint SOPs for planned events and emergencies. 

Lastly, a few States indicated that in some remote areas, coordination comes in the form of a 

handshake or gentleman’s agreement. 

A few State agencies and State government-elected officials exercise limited control over county 

and municipal governments. Therefore, although State agency compliance with various SOPs 

may be mandated, local compliance is limited to voluntary action or as a condition of accepting 

equipment grant funding. While some States indicated that they do not have a plan or process in 

place to identify or assess State, regional, or local SOPs , other States indicated that using the 

Communications Asset Survey and Mapping (CASM) tool with a locally designed database and 

onsite visits allow the State, regional, local, and tribal SOPs to be reviewed. 

4.1.4 Statewide SOPs 

Many States indicated they do not have or have not documented statewide communications SOPs. 

However, typically if the State has a statewide communications system, the State has developed 

SOPs that will govern the operation of the statewide communications system. In some cases, if 

the State is in the process of developing a statewide communications system, the SOPs developed 

will be reviewed by the system’s governance bodies. 


` 

4.1.5 State-to-State and International Mutual Aid SOPs 

States established standing plans to use mutual aid frequencies for law enforcement, fire service, 

emergency medical services (EMS), and emergency management between States. These efforts 

include consideration of interoperability planning, to the extent permitted by international 

agreement, along the Mexican and Canadian borders. These plans typically address major 

incidents and events. 

Some States noted that in the event of a multi-state disaster, communications with adjacent States 

will be conducted under the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC). EMAC is a 

national governor’s interstate mutual aid compact that facilitates the sharing of resources, 

personnel, and equipment across State lines during times of disaster and emergency. 18 

Additionally, there is the International Emergency Management Assistance Compact (IEMAC), 

which includes the New England States, the Maritime Provinces of Canada, and the Province of 

Quebec. 19 

4.1.6 Major Transit SOPs 

In many cases, emergency response agencies in urban areas with major transit and bus service 

companies provided these organizations with interoperable equipment or established interfaces 

with the emergency response agencies’ communications systems. In these situations, the transit 

organizations were included in the development and coordination of the regional SOPs. 

4.1.7 NIMS Compliance 

It is evident throughout the SCIPs that each State has its own way of coordinating SOPs. Some 

SOPs are statewide while many are locally developed and managed in various ways. For this 

reason, DHS issued the NIMS compliance requirement—the first-ever standardized approach to 

incident management and response. NIMS will enable responders at all levels to work together 

more effectively and efficiently to manage domestic incidents no matter what the cause, size or 

complexity, including catastrophic acts of terrorism and disasters. 20 Other critical components to 

successful SOPs that were identified through best practices and lessons learned include the 

implementation of plain language protocols and common channel naming, to name a few. 

All States adopted NIMS through an Executive Order or Executive Proclamation that was 

necessary to meet Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 (HSPD-5). Some States are closer 

to meeting the Federal mandate, while others are in the elementary stages; however, all SCIPs 

indicate that they are working to achieve NIMS and Incident Command System (ICS) 

compliance. Many States developed processes and procedures to monitor and demonstrate 

statewide compliance, while some States identified a specific individual whose role is to monitor 

NIMS compliance. Most States indicate that all future SOPs will be developed in compliance 

with NIMS and ICS requirements. Most, if not all States, declared that all State administered 

homeland security grants, jurisdictions, and agencies must comply with NIMS to receive grant 

funding. 




18 Ohio SCIP. 

19 New Hampshire SCIP. 

20 http://www.nimsonline.com/nims_faq.htm#0 


` 

SOPs 

Fully 

Plan to 

Implemented Implement 

Implementation of plain language protocols 16 17 

Implementation of common channel naming 5 8 


4.2 Key SOP Gaps and Obstacles 

Listed below are the SOP-related gaps and obstacles identified to improve statewide 

communications and ensure interoperability during emergencies. These themes address many of 

the missing operational and technical components required to establish effective SOPs. 

• Inconsistent channel nomenclature, common language, and radio codes. 

• Require consistent SOP standards, policies, and procedures to ensure proper usage and 

maintenance. 

• Require authority to track, enforce, or issue SOPs. 

• Require dissemination of SOPs statewide. 

• Require SOPs that address NIMS protocol training. 

• Require recurring certification process for SOPs. 

• Require updating to reflect changes in protocols or technology. 

• Require formal, well-documented SOPs. 

• Require integration and linkage to the various State and UASI plans, procedures, and 

exercises. 

• Require the resources to conduct detailed audits of statewide SOPs. 

4.3 Supporting Initiatives to Address SOP Gaps 

Each State developed strategic initiatives to address SOP gaps in their States. The top common 

SOP initiatives found in the SCIPs include: 

• Develop a formal statewide SOP training process to ensure that all emergency response 

agencies have up-to-date SOPs. 

• Consolidate SOPs into a field resource guide. 

• Develop SOPs for interoperable communications assets and newly acquired technologies. 

• Ensure SOPs are properly tested, maintained, updated, and utilized. 

• Develop and implement NIMS-procedures, specific ICS-related steps, and any associated 

qualifications into all SOPs. 

• Develop, distribute, and promote interoperable communications SOPs to stakeholders. 

• Establish and standardize statewide SOPs for all incidents. 

• Develop a plan to address communications interoperability with safety and security 

elements of the major transit systems, ports, and rail operations as appropriate. 

• Develop and update TICPs. 

• Establish an online repository for SOPs. 

• Establish a standing oversight committee responsible for developing and disseminating 

SOPs. 

• Seek participation of Federal, local, county, regional, tribal, and private sector response 

agencies when creating SOPs. 

• Use exercises to validate SOPs. 

• Develop a baseline of existing SOPs. 


` 

• Develop and promote common nomenclature guidance. 

• Adopt and immediately utilize plain language speech communications in compliance 

with NIMS requirements. 

4.4 SOP Best Practices 

The following best practices were identified in the evaluation of the SOP sections: 

SOP Best practice 

SOPs with State, regional, local, and 

tribal levels 

Statewide SOP Guidance 


Colorado employs SOPs at the State, regional, local, and tribal levels. The 

SOPs continue to be developed, managed, maintained, upgraded, and 

communicated to the necessary users. Every county and local government 

in Colorado has formally adopted NIMS and all SOPs throughout the State 

are NIMS-compliant. 

The Michigan Public Safety Communications System (MPSCS) Advisory 

Board established comprehensive SOP manuals for communications 

interoperability. The MPSCS SOPs provide guidance to agencies using 

the system across disciplines and geopolitical boundaries. SOPs are 

developed for radio caches, shared channels, NIMS compliance, agencies’ 

rights and responsibilities, and problem identification and resolution. SOPs 

are reviewed annually or as needed based on shortcomings from items 

identified in after action reports from natural or planned incidents. 

4.5 SOP Tools 

The following SOP tools are available on the SAFECOM website: 

Writing Guide for Standard Operating Procedures 21 

The purpose of the guide is to assist communities that want to establish formal written guidelines 

or instructions for incident response. Each section poses questions to consider when writing 

content for standard operating procedures. Sample paragraphs are included for reference. 

Plain Language Guide 22 

The purpose of this guide is to outline an approach for emergency response agencies, localities, 

and States to replace coded language radio transmissions with plain language. This guide 

includes reasons to adopt plain language, processes to make plain language a reality, and 

resources for transitioning to plain language. 

21 Writing Guide for Standard Operating Procedures. 

http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/library/interoperabilitybasics/1289_writingguide.htm 

22 Plain Language Guide. 

http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/library/interoperabilitybasics/1371_plainlanguage.htm 


` 

Improving Interoperability through Shared Channels – Version 2 23 

This guide helps the emergency response community understand the level of effort, resources, 

and key actions needed to implement a shared channel solution. It also provides case studies of 

regions that have successfully implemented a shared channel solution. 

Interoperable Communications for Planned Events 24 

This guide is intended for emergency response officials responsible for designing and executing 

interoperable communications plans for planned events in their community (e.g., festivals, 

concerts, and sporting events). Interoperable communications plans include not only voice but 

also data considerations. The content presented in this guide is based on input from emergency 

responders, including lessons learned and best practices. 

National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) Channel Naming Report 25 

This document outlines the Public Safety National Coordination Committee (NCC)/NPSTC 

Standard Channel Nomenclature for Public Safety Interoperability Channels as revised in June of 

2007. The requirement for a common naming protocol for public safety’s interoperability 

frequencies was identified in early 2000 by the NCC, a Federal Advisory Committee chartered by 

the FCC that operated from 1999 to 2003, and provided recommendations to the Commission on 

operational and technical parameters for use of the 700 megahertz (MHz) public safety band. 

National Interoperability Field Operations Guide 26 

This document is a collection of technical reference material for radio technicians who 

are responsible for radios that will be used in disaster response applications. 

5 The Importance of Technology 

Technology is a critical element in advancing interoperability, but it is not the sole element. 

Interoperability is a complex, multi-dimensional issue that involves a technological, strategic, 

tactical, and cultural change. There is never a “silver bullet” solution in the form of any piece of 

innovative voice or data equipment. Successful implementation of voice and data 

communications technology is supported by a secure governance structure and is highly 

dependent on effective operational procedures and consistent training of practitioners. The 

technologies described within the Interoperability Continuum must be scalable to effectively 

support day-to-day incidents as well as unpredicted potentially catastrophic events. 

The Interoperability Continuum specifically addresses technology by recognizing various 

technological approaches to achieve interoperability. The various approaches mentioned in the 

Interoperability Continuum can be observed in States across the country. It should be noted; 

however, that the most technically “advanced” communities often employ a combination of the 

technical approaches described in the Interoperability Continuum to achieve optimal 

23 Improving Interoperability through Shared Channels – Version 2. 

http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/library/technology/1370_improvinginteroperability.htm 

24 Interoperable Communications for Planned Events. 

http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/library/interoperabilitybasics/1335_interoperablecommunicat 

ions.htm 

25 National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) Channel Naming Report. 

http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/library/technology/1319_npstcchannel.htm 

26 National Interoperability Field Operations Guide. 

http://www.npstc.org/documents/NIFOG%20v1.2%204-14-2008.pdf 


` 

interoperability. That is, these communities do not abandon one approach for another, but rather 

combine multiple approaches to create a unified solution that can address multiple needs. 

In addition to interoperability, the emergency response community is highly aware of the need to 

address operability and continuity of operations. Tragic events such as Hurricane Katrina have 

highlighted the need to plan for major disruptions in service. Several SCIPs directly addressed 

survivability and redundancy measures, along with STRs that are available to be deployed 

specifically for this purpose. 

5.1 Common Technology Themes 

States face unique challenges depending on geography, population, threats, and budgets; 

however, some similar technological approaches are used to address emergency response 

communications and interoperability. Although various technical approaches were described in 

the SCIPs to address these challenges, several common technological trends emerged. The 

following information describes the common themes found throughout the technology sections. 

5.1.1 System of Systems 

The concept of “system of systems” is considered a best practice by many in the emergency 

response community who are striving to achieve interoperable communications. A system of 

systems exists when a group of independently operating systems—comprised of people, 

technology, and organizations—are connected, enabling emergency responders to effectively 

support day-to-day operations, planned events, or major incidents. 27 A system of systems could 

include multiple connected local systems or a combination of State, regional, local, and tribal 

systems. 

Some States, such as California, that have many urban areas with established land mobile radio 

(LMR) systems have identified a system of systems approach as the most appropriate strategy for 

their State. There are also regions of the country that have identified a system of systems strategy 

that allows independent systems to be integrated while also promoting collaboration through 

strong governance organizations. 

5.1.2 Shared Radio Systems 

As reflected in the Interoperability Continuum, shared radio systems provide an optimal level of 

interoperability. The term “shared radio systems” in this context refers to shared radio systems 

that are used as a primary system for daily operations. Shared radio systems are effective at the 

State level when multiple State agencies operate on a common shared radio infrastructure, 

thereby eliminating the need for multiple independent State systems. Shared radio systems can 

also operate at the regional level by supporting the operations of multiple local jurisdictions. 

Shared radio systems can also be designed to support multiple Federal, State, local, and tribal 

agencies. In addition, a shared radio system could be integrated into an even larger system of 

systems. 

Many States have or are planning to implement a shared statewide radio system. These shared 

statewide radio systems are typically designed to consolidate the communications of multiple 

State agencies onto a single system, thereby providing strong interoperability. Many States also 

make these systems available to Federal, local, and tribal agencies on a voluntary basis. In this 

27 Definition from A System of Systems Approach for Interoperable Communications. 

http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/library/interoperabilitybasics/1362_thesystem.htm 


` 

case, local governments either chose to use the shared statewide radio system as their primary 

system, or they decided to interface their system to the shared statewide radio system creating a 

systems of systems. 

Many States are striving to achieve the technical, operational, and financial advantages gained by 

combining multiple State and local agencies onto a common shared radio system. There are 

multiple initiatives to create shared statewide radio systems that not only support State agencies, 

but also Federal and local agencies. At least 30 States reported having shared statewide radio 

systems that either existed or were in progress that support multiple State agencies and Federal or 

local agencies. Fourteen (14) States reported that they are planning similar shared statewide radio 

systems. Local agencies typically cannot be required to use the shared statewide radio system, 

but were encouraged to do so. If local agencies chose not to use the system, there was often an 

option to interface to the shared statewide radio system either directly or through bridging 

technology. 

Some States identified a strategy that included a long-term goal of migrating all local users to the 

shared statewide radio system. In these cases, the long-term strategy included creating one shared 

statewide radio system to support all Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies. 

Some States reported the use of 700 and 800 MHz frequencies for existing or planned shared 

statewide radio systems. It was noted that at least 19 States are planning to use 700 MHz for a 

shared statewide radio system. There are also several shared statewide radio systems using very 

high frequency (VHF) as it propagates over distance better than 700/800 MHz frequencies; for 

example, Montana, Wyoming, and other large States. Some States are using hybrid systems that 

utilize multiple frequencies; for example Missouri and Virginia. 

The shared radio system approach was also evident at the regional level. Regional shared radio 

systems often consist of 700 or 800 MHz trunked systems that support multiple jurisdictions, 

thereby providing extensive interoperability capabilities while providing cost savings and 

advantages of shared infrastructure. 

5.1.3 Shared Channels 

Mutual aid and national interoperability frequencies are used in many States to support 

interoperable communications by providing a common shared channel. Several regional and 

statewide systems exist that provide either common mutual aid frequencies or national 

interoperability frequencies. 

The FCC and the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA) designated nationwide interoperability channels in the VHF, ultra high 

frequency (UHF), 700 MHz, and 800 MHz bands. Some States have implemented fixed 

infrastructure that supports national interoperability channels statewide. Others have installed 

regional infrastructure to provide national interoperability channel coverage. For example, 

Maryland created regional systems that provide national interoperability frequencies in each of 

the public safety bands along with a cross-band bridging capability. 

In addition to the national interoperability frequencies, many States have identified additional 

channels for mutual aid use. 


` 

5.1.4 Public-Private Partnerships 

Some States reported the establishment of public-private partnerships in order to provide cost 

effective emergency response LMR communications. These partnerships provide reliable 

mission-critical communications to emergency response agencies while providing cost savings 

and improved interoperability. Some of the most successful partnerships include State and local 

agencies and major LMR vendors who own and operate the infrastructure. These systems are 

designed to emergency response specifications and requirements. 

Occasionally commercial radio services are used to provide push-to-talk communications to 

emergency response agencies. While these commercial systems are effective at providing pushto-talk 

service to emergency response agencies, users should evaluate the ability of these systems 

to support communications under heavy load conditions experienced during large events. 

5.1.5 Strategic Technology Reserves/Survivability and Redundancy 

Most States and localities are developing new systems or enhancing existing assets to provide 

backup communications in the event that critical communications are either disabled or 

destroyed. One common approach is the creation of a STR consisting of radio caches and 

transportable communications towers and equipment. This type of reserve can be used to provide 

backup and incident area communications when local infrastructure is damaged. The equipment 

can also be used to provide interoperable communications with Federal responders and mutual 

aid responders coming in from other States or regions. The majority of States reported the 

existence of or the development of STRs. 

Several States have developed or are planning backup or alternate means of communications 

including satellite and redundant systems. 

5.1.6 VoIP Systems (Statewide and Regional) 

Voice over IP (VoIP) technology, sometimes referred to as Radio over IP (RoIP), is becoming a 

popular technology used to provide bridging between disparate radio systems on a statewide or 

regional basis. These networks are often supported by VoIP gateways and a common Internet 

Protocol (IP) backbone that allows the patching of multiple State or local radio channels. The 

systems are often controlled by workstations provided at dispatch centers or control points. 

Eleven (11) States reported the creation of statewide VoIP systems including Alabama, Florida, 

and Georgia. Several regional VoIP systems were reported as well, including regions in 

Kentucky, Maryland, Nebraska, and Virginia. Although VoIP systems do not provide the 

functionality or roaming capability of a shared radio system, they can be effective if 

complemented with strong governance, SOPs, training and exercises, requirements development, 

and plans for sustainability. 

5.1.7 Data Interoperability (Wired and Wireless) 

Although most SCIPs were focused on voice interoperability, many States also identified plans to 

address data interoperability and wireless data access. 

Most States reported some limited wireless access capability. Some States included initiatives to 

identify and evaluate broadband wireless alternatives including public-private partnerships and 

700 MHz broadband options. 

Several States identified initiatives to increase situational awareness through the development of a 

common operating picture (COP) that integrates data from multiple disparate sources from both 

the State and local level. These COP systems often use Geographic Information System (GIS) 


` 

technology to depict relationships, connections, and patterns enabling situational awareness and 

better decision making. Projects of this type were reported in Alabama, Maryland, and Virginia. 

5.1.8 Technology Assessments 

The SCIP criteria encouraged development of a statewide capabilities assessment (or a plan for 

one), which includes critical communications equipment and related interoperability issues. 

Some States have already performed technology assessments. Of those that have not, most have 

identified initiatives to perform necessary technology assessments, with several intending to use 

the CASM tool to support data collection and analysis. . 




Technology 

Fully 

Plan to 

Implemented Implement 

National interoperability channels programmed into radios 6 12 

Conducting assessments of technology capabilities, specifically 

identifying and inventorying infrastructure and equipment 

29 25 


5.2 Key Technology Gaps and Obstacles 

Analysis of the SCIPs identified the following gaps that are driving initiatives for improved 

emergency response communications across the country: 

• Require further technical assessment data or existing technical assessments incomplete or 

outdated. 

• While the majority of States reported the existence of or the development of STRs, there 

are still significant gaps in this area: 

o Inadequate STR assets; 

o Current status of STRs unknown (also reflects need for assessments); 

o Regions without interoperable communication in disaster situations; and 

o Require backup and restoration capabilities. 

• Require data interoperability. 

• Require voice coverage (operability). 

• Incompatible and aging communications equipment. 

• State agencies on different systems. 

• Require an infrastructure that supports mutual aid communications. 

• Require broadband wireless communications. 

5.3 Supporting Initiatives Addressing Technology Gaps 

As the emergency response community continues to address communication needs, it is 

imperative for States to move forward in a way that promotes collaboration and addresses 

multiple dimensions that will lead to successful implementation of technical solutions. 

Each State developed strategic initiatives to address gaps in technical capabilities. The top 

common technical initiatives found in the SCIPs include: 


` 

• Develop or enhance STRs. 

• Develop or complete technology assessments. 

• Develop shared statewide or regional radio systems supporting multiple Federal, State, 

and local agencies. 

• Install statewide or regional fixed interoperability channel infrastructure. 

5.4 Technology Examples 

Listed below are examples of some of the current technology trends observed in the SCIPs: 

Technology Example 

System of Systems 


California’s strategy includes the development of a statewide standardsbased 

system of systems communications network for California’s public 

safety and designated public service practitioners. The near term system 

of systems vision is the interconnection of existing legacy architectures with 

standards-based networks until some point in the future when all radio 

systems in California become standards-based observing the Project 25 

(P25) suite of standards. 

Arizona is considering a system of systems approach to interoperability to 

include existing and new 700/800 MHz P25 trunked systems; the upgrade 

and build out of the State’s digital microwave backbone; and high level 

network connections between key regional systems as well as Arizona’s 

Interagency Radio System (AIRS), which utilizes a cross-band repeater 

configuration to enable VHF, UHF, and 700/800 MHz frequency 

interoperability, for jurisdictions that retain conventional radio systems. 

The State of Utah promotes a system of systems approach to the design 

and implementation of communications networks for public safety. Three 

primary communications systems exist in Utah with several smaller 

regional systems integrated into a common statewide interoperability 

platform. 

STR (Radio Cache) 

STR (Survivability) 

Shared Statewide Radio System 

Virginia developed policies and procedures based on the NIMS typing 

model and secured funding for strategic radio cache resources statewide. 

The policies and procedures define radio cache resources in five types – 

Type I being the highest level of functionality and deployable resources. 

(Virginia has a best practices paper available upon request.) 

Alaska has two deployable, transportable, modular Alaska Land Mobile 

Radio (ALMR) systems that can be transported by truck, heavy sling lift by 

helo, or civilian and military aircraft to anywhere in State or Nation. The 

Department of Defense maintains two Transportable Communications units 

for mobile interoperable capability. Each of the four modules is mounted 

on a light-weight aluminum skid that can be quickly loaded on existing 

military cargo transport aircraft. 

The Consolidated Communications Network of Colorado (CCNC) is a 

statewide Project 25 700/800 MHz Digital Trunked Radio System (DTRS) 

currently used by 32,200 users from 703 agencies. 80% of users are non- 

State agencies. 


` 



Indiana’s Project Hoosier SAFE-T (Safety Acting for Everyone – Together), 

completed summer 2007, is an 800 MHz trunked voice and data 

communications system which provides both day-to-day and mission 

critical interoperability for Indiana Federal, State, and local first responders 

and public safety officials. 

ALMR is a single shared LMR system between Federal, State, and local 

government agencies; pooling spectrum between Federal and State users. 

The system is unique in that it was accomplished through the shared use of 

State of Alaska and Department of Defense assigned VHF frequencies. 

Wyoming is constructing a new P25, VHF digital trunked system – WyoLink 

– which will be the primary communications system for all State agencies 

and the public safety communications system for Federal, State, local, and 

tribal public safety agencies. The system will provide interoperability 

between all users. 

Shared Regional Radio System 

Several primary communications systems exist in Utah. The Utah 

Communications Agency Network (UCAN) operates an independent 800 

MHz system that supports multiple jurisdictions in the heavily populated 

Wasatch Front region. In addition, this system is integrated with other 

State and regional systems to create a system of systems. 

Louisiana’s 700/800 MHz P25 System is operational statewide providing 

95% portable on street coverage in southern Louisiana and 95% mobile 

coverage in central and north Louisiana. The system has over 31,000 

users, with additional agencies planning to connect to the system in early 

2009 as the increased capability and coverage expansion of the P25 

System continues. 

Shared Channels (Regional or 

Statewide FCC National 

Interoperability Channel 

Infrastructure) 

In addition to their primary radio system, Delaware installed FCC 

designated 800 MHz ICALL/ITAC frequencies throughout the State. 

Rhode Island maintains 17 sites using ITAC/ICALL repeaters as part of 

Region 19 interoperable initiative as well as inter-State interoperability with 

Connecticut and Massachusetts 

Through the TAC Stack initiative, Maryland is working to install regional 

infrastructure to provide coverage for interoperability channels designated 

by the FCC in three public-safety bands: VHF, UHF and 800 MHz. A cross 

band capability is provided through audio interconnect. 

VoIP / Radio over IP (RoIP) 

The Florida Interoperability Network (FIN), a statewide gateway solution, 

places over 230 public safety communications centers on a common IP 

network. FIN provides the ability to bridge radio resources together 

throughout the State. 

The Central Nebraska Regions for Interoperability (CNRI) effort includes a 

multi-county IP network and integration software to integrate independently 

owned and operated land mobile radio systems. 

Public-Private Partnerships 

The STARCOM 21 is a public-private partnership established to provide 

more cost effective access to reliable and interoperable communications to 


` 



public safety agencies. In this example, the state-of-the-art LMR system 

has been made available to public safety agencies across all levels of 

government serving Illinois. 

Florida's Statewide Law Enforcement Radio System (SLERS) is a single, 

unified radio network that supports State law enforcement, Florida National 

Guard, and some local public safety agencies throughout the State of 

Florida. This statewide network is the result of a public-private partnership 

between the State of Florida and its vendor. 

Virginia created a partnership agreement between Virginia Information 

Technologies Agency (VITA) and its vendor for the modernization of IT 

infrastructure within the Commonwealth. 

Virtual Alabama is a 3D visualization platform that provides the statewide 

common operating picture and situational awareness needed by Alabama’s 

first responders to plan for, respond to, and recover from disasters. 

Data Interoperability (Common 

Operating Picture) 

Broadband Wireless 

The Emergency Management Mapping Application (EMMA) enables the 

emergency management community to access and display relevant and 

real-time information on a map before, during, and after an incident occurs. 

The Maryland Emergency Geographic Information Network (MEGIN) is a 

secure technology backbone to provide first responders and emergency 

managers with access to specific data that they need, in real time, across 

the State. 

The National Capital Region (NCR) includes the District of Columbia and 

18 other jurisdictions in Virginia and Maryland. The Regional Wireless 

Broadband Network (RWBN) is the first in the Nation to establish a public 

safety regional broadband wireless network at 700 MHz with the capacity 

to transmit video, data, and voice communications, though its future status 

depends strongly on the outcome of ongoing Federal spectrum decision 

making. 

5.5 Technology Tools 

The following Technology tools are available on the SAFECOM website: 

The Systems of Systems Approach for Interoperable Communications 28 

This brochure is designed to help the emergency response community, as well as Federal, State, 

local, and tribal policy makers, understand the system of systems concept, the benefits of applying 

this concept, and how it can aid agencies in achieving interoperability. 

Data Messaging Standards Guide for Requests for Proposals (RFPs) 29 

This guide is intended to assist procurement officials who develop RFPs for emergency response 

information technology systems. The language provided in the guide requires Emergency Data 

28 The Systems of Systems Approach for Interoperable Communications. 

http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/library/interoperabilitybasics/1362_thesystem.htm 

29 Data Messaging Standards Guide for Requests for Proposals (RFPs). 

http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/library/grant/1355_datamessaging.htm 


` 

Exchange Language (EDXL) messaging standards that enable emergency responders to share 

critical data seamlessly across disparate software applications, devices, and systems. 

How to Guide for Managing the Radio System Life-Cycle 30 

This guide is designed to assist emergency response agencies in navigating the radio system life 

cycle. It covers issues essential to successful planning, design, procurement, implementation, 

operations, and maintenance of a regional or statewide radio communications system. 

Improving Interoperability through Shared Channels – Version 2 31 

This guide helps the emergency response community understand the level of effort, resources, 

and key actions needed to implement a shared channel solution. It also provides case studies of 

regions that have successfully implemented a shared channel solution. 

Law Enforcement Tech Guide for Communications Interoperability 32 

This guide, published by the Department of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services, is intended to provide the emergency response community with practical information to 

support efforts to successfully establish interagency, interdisciplinary, and inter-jurisdictional 

voice and data communications systems. The guide assists with planning, procuring, and 

implementing new communications systems. 

National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) Channel Naming Report 33 

This document outlines the Public Safety NCC/NPSTC Standard Channel Nomenclature for 

Public Safety Interoperability Channels as revised in June of 2007. The requirement for a 

common naming protocol for public safety’s interoperability frequencies was identified in early 

2000 by the NCC, a Federal Advisory Committee chartered by the FCC that operated from 1999 

to 2003, and provided recommendations to the Commission on operational and technical 

parameters for use of the 700 MHz public safety band. 

6 The Importance of Training and Exercises 

The training and exercises lane of the Interoperability Continuum refers to the instructional 

support designed to develop knowledge, skills, and performance of emergency response 

personnel. Proper training and regular exercises are critical to the implementation and 

maintenance of a successful interoperability solution. To progress along the training and 

exercises lane, a high degree of coordination and interdependence with the usage of interoperable 

equipment is essential due to consistently increasing levels of complexity and regularity in the 

training and exercise curriculum. As communities become adept in using localized jurisdictional 

interoperability solutions, the scope of the training and exercises should expand to involve crossjurisdictional 

and cross-disciplinary aspects. 

30 How to Guide for Managing the Radio System Life-Cycle. 

http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/library/systems/1048_HowTo.htm 

31 Improving Interoperability through Shared Channels – Version 2. 

http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/library/technology/1370_improvinginteroperability.htm 

32 Law Enforcement Tech Guide for Communications. Interoperability 

http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/library/technology/1316_technologyguide.htm 

33 National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) Channel Naming Report. 

http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/library/technology/1319_npstcchannel.htm 


` 

Optimal interoperability involves equipment familiarization and an introduction to State and 

regional interoperability. Agency-specific education on local interoperability should be provided 

throughout the States to emergency response personnel during initial agency training programs, 

and refresher courses should be offered on a regular basis. Interoperability success is achieved by 

regular, comprehensive, and realistic exercises that address potential problems in the State and 

involve the participation of responders on every level. 

6.1 Common Training and Exercises Themes 

The goal of training and exercises is to guarantee the emergency response community can 

respond to incidents effectively, efficiently, and safely. Information received in the SCIPs 

identified limited frequency and limited scope of cross-jurisdictional and cross-disciplinary 

participants in training and exercise programs. In many of these cases, participants include 

stakeholders from across all levels of government, but not necessarily across all levels of the 

emergency response practitioner community. It should be noted that the exact frequency of 

exercises varies from State to State. 

6.1.1 Operational Procedure Training 

States build communications interoperability into operational procedures that can be trained and 

exercised regularly. Progress along the training and exercises lane intertwines with advancement 

along the technology lane to ensure operational field personnel are familiar with new 

technologies, such as gateways and patching systems, as they are acquired and incorporated into a 

community’s system. As reported in the SCIPs, approximately six percent of States have 

implemented regular training and exercises focused solely on the use of existing technological 

interoperability solutions. 

6.1.2 ICS Communication Unit Position Training 

Critical and unprecedented incidents require an expert at the helm of the emergency response 

community who can immediately adapt to the situation. Within ICS, the communications 

specialists are referred to as the Communications Unit Leaders (COMLs). The role of any 

COML position is a critical function that requires adequate training above and beyond the basic 

knowledge of communications systems and prepares emergency responders to manage the 

communications component of larger interoperability incidents. In response to the immediate 

need for trained All-Hazards COMLs, OEC is utilizing a newly-developed curriculum to offer 

NIMS-compliant COML instruction throughout the Nation. Given the COML training was not 

available during the initial SCIP development, very few States have completed COML training in 

their respective communities at this time, but many have COML training planned and in place in 

the near future. OEC will also provide a train-the-trainer course to increase the number of 

COMLs throughout the Nation. 

6.1.3 NIMS Training 

The adoption and training of NIMS represents an initial step in establishing a national consistency 

for how agencies and jurisdictions define operations. As a result, some emergency response 

communities established a wide range of operational protocols, ranging from developed standards 

for interoperability channel naming to the use of plain language. The NECP and SAFECOM 

grant guidance encourages the migration from current radio practices to plain language standards, 

and all emergency response communities stand to benefit by effectively and efficiently meeting 

these standards. As reported in the SCIPs, very few States currently conduct communicationsspecific 

training and exercises focused on the use of established operational protocols. Most 

State and local agencies; however, have adopted NIMS, have trained in its use, and routinely 


` 

practice its implementation through planned exercises and multi-jurisdictional events. The NECP 

supports the widespread attention shown to NIMS training, and encourages those States that have 

not yet addressed this area to begin immediate plans for NIMS adoption and a NIMS/ICS training 

and exercise program. 

6.1.4 Common Training and Exercise Programs 

The majority of States have a firm process, whether formal or informal, for training and exercise 

certification. Communication-specific training is sometimes found to be a part of a larger 

training program within the States, and is conducted in the form of a classroom setting, workshop 

environment, Internet-based instruction, on the job training, train-the-trainer courses, and tabletop 

and full-scale exercises. Many States, however, recognize that more formal training needs to be 

developed around communications. States are taking extra precautions to ensure that all training 

and exercises that are offered are on a multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional, and multi-disciplinary 

level. The majority of States that are not already providing ongoing refresher training have plans 

to immediately begin such a course. 

Nearly all exercises, whether or not communication-specific, are conducted in every State 

between a weekly, monthly, quarterly, and yearly basis. Almost all States conduct at least one 

exercise per calendar year, and several hold a minimum of two exercises per calendar year. As 

required by the Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP), which highly 

encourages exercise documentation, several SCIPs reported that regular After Action Reports 

(AAR) and Improvement Plans (IP) are published following all full-scale and tactical exercises. 

The release of an AAR or IP allows for any shortcoming in a compulsory objective of an exercise 

to be immediately addressed by the development of an appropriate and timely training plan. 




Training and Exercises 

Completed 

Plan to 

Complete 

Conducting communications-specific training focused on: 

Use of established operational protocols (e.g., plain language) 6 20 

Use of NIMS ICS 31 17 

Use of existing interoperable emergency communications solutions 10 29 

Communication Unit Leader Training, Communication Unit 

Technician, or other ICS Communication Unit position training 

8 31 

Conducting communications-specific exercises focused on: 

Use of established protocols 2 21 

Use of existing interoperable emergency communications solutions 3 27 

Leverage TICP to exercise on SOPs 2 15 

Note: For a few States it was unclear if they completed/plan to complete the above key components. 

6.2 Key Training and Exercises Gaps and Obstacles 

Analysis of the SCIPs identified the following key gaps driving efforts for improved training and 

exercise programs for interoperability across the country. These gaps provide a snapshot of a 

current status with overall limited and inconsistent training, and few communications-specific 

exercise programs in place at this time: 


` 

6.4 Training and Exercises Best Practice 

Training and Exercise Best Practice 

Yearly Planning Workshops 


Each year, the Indiana Department of Homeland Security (IDHS) 

hosts a statewide Training and Exercise Planning Workshop (TEPW) 

for personnel involved in creating training and exercise programs for 

Federal, State, and local governments. The IDHS Consolidated 

Training Calendar is available online and searchable by discipline, 

topic, and date to ensure that training opportunities throughout the 

State are easily located. 

6.5 Training and Exercises Tools 

The following Training and Exercises tools are available on the SAFECOM website: 

Interoperable Communications for Planned Events 34 

This guide is intended for emergency response officials responsible for designing and executing 

interoperable communications plans for planned events (e.g., festivals, concerts, and sporting 

events) in their community. Interoperable communications plans include not only voice but also 

data considerations. The content presented in this guide is based on input from emergency 

responders, including lessons learned and best practices. 

Communications Unit Leader Training Course 35 

This COML training will qualify emergency responders as lead radio communications 

coordinators if they possess the necessary prerequisites, including knowledge of local 

communications; communications systems; and State, regional, and local communications plans. 

COML responsibilities include developing plans for the effective use of incident communications 

equipment and facilities, managing the distribution of communications equipment to incident 

personnel, and coordinating the installation and testing of communications equipment. 

Communications-Specific Tabletop Exercise (TTX) Methodology 36 

This document is intended to help local policymakers and Federal technical assistance programs 

plan, design, and conduct communications-specific exercises in collaboration with the emergency 

response community. Tabletop Exercises (TTXs) are an important component of interoperability 

training and exercises. Replicable nationwide, the methodology may be tailored to the specific 

needs, realities, and organizational cultures of diverse localities. 

34 Interoperable Communications for Planned Events. 

http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/library/interoperabilitybasics/1335_interoperablecommunicat 

ions.htm 

35 Communications Unit Leader Training Course. 

http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/currentprojects/comltraining/ 

36 Communications-Specific Tabletop Exercise (TTX) Methodology. 

http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/library/interoperabilitybasics/1396_communicationsspecifict 

abletop.htm 


` 

7 The Importance of Usage 

Success in the usage lane is contingent upon progress and collaboration among all lanes of the 

Interoperability Continuum. The usage lane of the Interoperability Continuum focuses on the 

actual usage of equipment, technology, SOPs, and training and exercises in day-to-day operations 

to ensure proper usage during large-scale incidents. Usage refers specifically to how often a 

community uses and engages in interoperable communications across disciplinary and 

jurisdictional lines. Unless emergency response agencies employ interoperable equipment, SOPs, 

and training on a regular basis, communities will not be adequately prepared to respond during 

potentially catastrophic large-scale events. 

An optimal level of usage would show that practitioners are familiar and proficient with all 

operational procedures and equipment, and routinely work in collaboration with one another. 

Interoperable communications are employed daily for planned events, localized emergency 

incidents, and regional incident management. Optimally, there is no cause for hesitancy in a 

critical moment and no hindrance in a split second to save a life. 

In submission of the SCIPs, States were asked to “describe the plan for ensuring regular usage of 

the relevant equipment and the SOPs needed to improve interoperability.” 

Emergency responders who train regularly, and who employ solutions and operational procedures 

on a daily basis, are able to use emergency communications more effectively during major events 

and unforeseen incidents. The ability of emergency responders to effectively communicate is 

paramount to the safety and security of our Nation; a lack of proficient and coordinated solutions 

and protocols serve only to hinder these abilities during critical response and recovery efforts. 

7.1 Common Usage Themes 

An analysis of the SCIPs shows that to advance interoperable communications nationwide, States 

need to continue to increase user levels of familiarity and proficiency of communications 

capabilities by providing day-to-day tests, ongoing and refresher training, testing of 

communications plans, and regional large-scale exercises. 

Some States employ some form of regular usage of interoperability solutions and testing of 

emergency capabilities, resulting in a high level of familiarity and proficiency in local 

communities. However, many States are lacking in their familiarity with Federal, tribal, and 

neighboring agencies and jurisdictions’ policies and processes. In addition, many State, local, 

and tribal agencies have or are in the process of modernizing and expanding their systems 

through Federal grant programs and a number of initiatives. States can benefit by working to 

better understand existing programs and infrastructures across all disciplines and jurisdictions in 

their areas. A clear and precise familiarity will serve to improve coordination and maximize safe 

and efficient field capabilities. 

7.2 Key Usage Gaps and Obstacles 

Analysis of the SCIPs identified the following key gaps driving efforts for improved usage in the 

current state of interoperability across the country: 

• There is a deficient in regular communications training and exercises. 


` 

• Many mutual aid channels that are available are rarely used other than for back-up 

systems. 

• There are limitations in the list of qualified individuals that can be called upon to respond 

during extended deployment of certain equipment. 

• Regular usage of relevant interoperable communications equipment and SOPs are not 

mandated. 

• There is no tracking mechanism currently in existence to measure the success and 

continuity of interoperable communications usage. 

• There is a severe lack of consistency in the usage of plain language. 

• SOPs do not currently address regular usage of equipment to maintain a level of 

familiarity with responders. 

• A need of knowledge on the availability of interoperable equipment and therefore require 

training on the use of available equipment. 

• Interoperability is limited between different mutual aid channels and services, between 

different Federal and State entities, and between local agencies across jurisdictions. 

• Outreach and education to improve partnerships and collaborative relationships with all 

stakeholders do not exist. 

7.3 Supporting Initiatives Addressing Training & Exercise Gaps 

Nearly every State has declared an immediate plan to encourage the regular use of equipment and 

SOPs through increased training and exercises and AARs to establish an assessment and record of 

proficiency throughout every jurisdiction. Regular testing will commence in several areas, and 

users on every system will be documented. 

In a select few areas, “How To” guides for specific equipment will be developed following 

communications assessment information available through the employment of CASM. Vendors 

will be encouraged to read these guides and to base their future developments and distributions on 

the provided information. 

As referred to in the Interoperability Continuum, the term “usage” covers a broad range of 

requirements and opportunities for improvement. As a result, the advancement of every 

previously-mentioned element on the Interoperability Continuum – governance, SOPs, 

technology, and training and exercises – will naturally promote usage and will help to ensure the 

proficiency of the emergency response community and the safety of the Nation. 

Each State developed strategic initiatives to address usage gaps in their States. The top common 

usage initiatives found in the SCIPs include: 

• Encourage the daily use of interoperable communications equipment. 

• Conduct regular testing to identify operational or technical impediments to interoperable 

communications. 

• Conduct NIMS-compliant training and exercises to promote usage of all technologies and 

procedures on a regular basis. 

• Develop a multi-faceted capability for testing and exercising statewide interoperable 

communications plans, systems, and personnel. 

• Identify usage patterns through the employment of the CASM tool. 

• Conduct a needs assessment to guide the dissemination of interoperable communications 

equipment in the future. 

• Utilize plain language speech communications in compliance with NIMS requirements. 


` 

• Achieve daily usage of a statewide network among all responders, and implement weekly 

testing with documentation of users on the system. 

• Develop additional resources to provide technical assistance, and a central repository for 

all AARs. 

• Develop programs to provide users with “How To” guides for specific radio equipment. 

7.4 Usage Best Practice 

Usage Best Practice 

Usage Exercises 

State Example 

California sponsors and facilitates a plethora of well-designed and executed 

exercises, which are the most effective means of testing and validating 

policies, plans, procedures, training, equipment, and interagency agreements; 

training personnel and clarifying roles and responsibilities; improving 

interagency coordination and communications; identifying gaps in resources; 

improving individual performance; and identifying opportunities for 

improvement. Quarterly exercises are conducted for earthquake, nuclear 

power plant, and independent systems operators. Monthly exercises are 

conducted on tsunami and dam crisis efforts. Biweekly exercises are 

conducted on fire radio checks, and weekly tests occur on the Operational 

Area Satellite Information System (OASIS). Roll calls are made on each of 

the two secure communications systems consisting of hard-wired direct 

telephone lines: the California Warning Alert System (CALWAS) and the 

National Warning Alert System (NAWAS). 

8 Conclusion and Future Progress 

The completion of all 56 SCIPs across the Nation marks a significant achievement for the 

emergency response community. Each SCIP demonstrates the States willingness and ability to 

aggressively pursue the problem of interoperability and addresses the issues in terms of the five 

critical success factors necessary to achieve interoperability: governance, SOPs, technology, 

training and exercises, and usage of interoperable systems. In documenting a unified current state 

assessment of communications interoperability, the Nation’s emergency response community can 

move forward together towards achieved, marked improvement. Collectively, the Nation stands 

ready to proceed down the path of implementation. 

As mentioned throughout this document, OEC is dedicated to assisting the States towards 

achieving each vision and mission. Through the collection and analysis of all 56 SCIPs combined 

with other practitioner input and relevant data, OEC developed the NECP to address nationwide 

gaps and determine solutions so that emergency response personnel at all levels of government 

and across all disciplines can communicate as needed, on demand, and as authorized. The NECP 

is the Nation’s first strategic plan to improve emergency response communications, and 

complements overarching homeland security and emergency communications legislation, 

strategies, and initiatives. In addition to the detailed NECP initiatives (see Appendix D), the 

NECP includes the following milestones as recommended actions for the States to consider as 

they implement their SCIPs: 


` 

By July 2009: 

• Establish a full-time statewide interoperability coordinator or equivalent positions. 

• The Statewide Interoperability Governing Body (SIGB) should incorporate the 

recommended membership as outlined in the Criteria for Statewide Interoperability 

Strategic Plans and should be established via legislation or executive order by an 

individual State’s governor. 

• All Federal, State, local, and tribal emergency response providers within UASI 

jurisdictions have implemented the Communications and Information Management 

section of the NIMS. 

• Tactical planning among Federal, State, local, and tribal governments occurs at the 

regional interstate level. 

By January 2010: 

• Emergency response agencies program an appropriate set of frequency-band-specific 

nationwide interoperability channels into all existing emergency responder radios and 

incorporate the use of the channels into SOPs, training, and exercises at the Federal, 

State, regional, local, and tribal levels. 

By July 2010: 

• SCIPs reflect plans to eliminate coded substitutions throughout the ICS. 

• All Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies in UASIs will have defined alternate/backup 

capabilities in emergency communications plans. 

• Complete disaster communications training and exercises for all 56 States and territories. 

Lastly, the NECP provides overarching national goals and priorities to improve operability, 

interoperability, and continuity of communications within the Federal, State, local, and tribal 

emergency response communities. 

The utility of developing SCIPs and the level of investment required will not end with this 

process. Beginning this fiscal year, States will begin aligning their SCIPs to the NECP goals and 

milestones. Alignment is expected to be complete by December 2010. It is the goal of OEC to 

work with the States to implement and update the SCIPs in a fashion that bridges interoperability 

gaps and moves the individual States and the Nation as a whole towards the shared vision of the 

NECP – emergency response personnel can communicate as needed, on demand, and as 

authorized; at all levels of government; and across all disciplines. 

The analysis demonstrates the complexity of the interoperable communications environment 

while creating an awareness of the commonalities found within it. The identification of the 

common themes, trends, and best practices found throughout the Nation reveals that States have 

many of the same challenges and needs. These challenges are not insurmountable and will best 

be overcome though continued partnerships among Federal, State, local, and tribal emergency 

response organizations and industry. All emergency response stakeholders must work together to 

achieve successful interoperable communications. 


` 

Appendix 

A. SAFECOM SCIP Criteria Compliance Matrix 

Criteria # Description 

1. Background and Preliminary Steps 

1.1 Provide an overview and background information on the state and its regions. Include 

geographic and demographic information. 

1.2 List all agencies and organizations that participated in developing the plan. (List them 

according to the categories recommended for a communications interoperability committee 

in the All-Inclusive Approach section above.) 

1.3 Identify the point of contact. DHS expects that each state will have a full time 

interoperability coordinator. The coordinator should not represent or be affiliated with any 

one particular discipline and should not have to balance the coordinator duties with other 

responsibilities. 

1.4 Describe the communications and interoperability environment of the current emergency 

response effort. 

1.5 Include a problem definition and possible solutions that address the challenges identified in 

achieving interoperability within the SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum. 

1.6 Identify any Tactical Interoperability Communications Plans in the state. 

1.7 Set the scope and timeframe of the plan. 

2. Strategy 

2.1 Describe the strategic vision, goals, and objectives for improving emergency response 

interagency wireless communications statewide, including how they connect with existing 

plans within the state. 

2.2 Provide a strategic plan for coordination with neighboring states. If applicable, include a 

plan for coordination with neighboring countries. 

2.3 Provide a strategic plan for addressing data interoperability in addition to voice 

interoperability. 

2.4 Describe a strategy for addressing catastrophic loss of communication assets by developing 

redundancies in the communications interoperability plan. 

2.5 Describe how the plan is, or will become, compliant with the National Incident Management 

System (NIMS) and the National Response Plan. 

2.6 Describe a strategy for addressing communications interoperability with the safety and 

security elements of the major transit systems, intercity bus service providers, ports, and 

passenger rail operations within the state. 

2.7 Describe the process for periodic review and revision of the state plan. 

3. Methodology 

3.1 Describe the method by which multi-jurisdictional, multi-disciplinary input was provided 

from all regions of the state. For an example of a methodology that ensures input from all 

regions, see the Statewide Communication Interoperability Plan, or SCIP, methodology 

developed by SAFECOM. 

3.2 Define the process for continuing to have local input and for building local support of the 

plan. 

3.3 Define how the TICPs were incorporated into the statewide plan. 

3.4 Describe the strategy for implementing all components of the statewide plan. 

4. Governance 

4.1 Identify the executive or legislative authority for the governing body of the interoperability 

effort. 

4.2 Provide an overview of the governance structure that will oversee development and 

implementation of the plan. Illustrate how it is representative of all of the relevant 


` 


emergency response disciplines and regions in the state. 

4.3 Provide the charter for the governing body, and use the charter to state the principles, roles, 

responsibilities, and processes. 

4.4 Identify the members of the governing body and any of its committees. 

4.5 Provide a meeting schedule for the governing body 

4.6 Describe multi-jurisdictional, multi disciplinary agreements needed for decision making and 

for sharing resources. 

5. Technology 

5.1 Include a statewide capabilities assessment (or a plan for one) which includes critical 

communications equipment and related interoperability issues. At a minimum this should 

include types of radio systems, data and incident management systems, the manufacturer, 

and frequency assignments for each major emergency responder organization within the 

state. Ultimately more detailed information will be required to complete the documentation 

of a migration strategy. States may use the Communications Asset Survey and Mapping 

(CASM) tool to conduct this assessment. 

5.2 Describe plans for continuing support of legacy systems and developing interfaces among 

disparate systems while migrating to newer technologies. 

5.2.1 Describe the migration plan for moving from existing technologies to newly procured 

technologies. 

5.2.2 Describe the process that will be used to ensure that new purchases comply with the 

statewide plan, while generally allowing existing equipment to serve out its useful life. 

6. Standard operating Procedures (SOPs) 

6.1 Include an assessment of current local, regional, and state operating procedures which 

support interoperability. 

6.2 Define the process by which the localities, regions, and state will develop, manage, 

maintain, upgrade, and communicate standard operating procedures (SOPs), as appropriate. 

6.3 Identify the agencies included in the development of the SOPs and the agencies expected to 

comply with the SOPs. 

6.4 Demonstrate how the SOPs are NIMS-compliant in terms of the Incident Command System 

(ICS) and preparedness. 

7. Training and Exercises 

7.1 Define the process by which the state will develop, manage, maintain and upgrade, or 

coordinate as appropriate, a statewide training and exercises program. 

7.2 Describe the process for offering and requiring training and exercises, as well as any 

certification that will be needed. 

7.3 Explain how the process ensures that training is cross-disciplinary. 

8. Usage 

8.1 Describe the plan for ensuring regular usage of the relevant equipment and the SOPs needed 

to improve interoperability. 

9. Funding 

9.1 Identify committed sources of funding or the process for identifying and securing short- and 

long-term funding. 

9.2 Include a plan for the development of a comprehensive funding strategy. The plan should 

include a process for identifying ongoing funding sources, anticipated costs, and resources 

needed for project management and leveraging active projects. 

10. Implementation 

10.1 Describe the prioritized action plan with short- and long-term goals for achieving the 

objectives. 

10.2 Describe the performance measures that will allow policy makers to track the progress and 

success of initiatives. 

10.3 Describe the plan for educating policy makers and practitioners on interoperability goals and 

initiatives. 

10.4 Describe the roles and opportunities for involvement of all local, tribal, and state agencies in 

the implementation of the statewide plan. 


` 


10.5 Establish a plan for identifying, developing, and overseeing operational requirements, SOPs, 

training, technical solutions, and short- and long-term funding sources. 

10.6 Identify a point of contact responsible for implementing the plan. 

10.7 Describe critical success factors for implementation of the plan. 

11. PSIC Requirements 

11.1 Describe how public safety agencies will plan and coordinate, acquire, deploy, and train on 

interoperable communications equipment, software, and systems that: 

1) utilize reallocated public safety spectrum- the public safety spectrum in the 700 

MHz frequency band; 

2) enable interoperability with communication systems that can utilize reallocated 

public safety spectrum for radio communications; or otherwise improve or advance 

the interoperability of public safety communications systems that utilize other public 

safety spectrum bands. 

11.2 Describe how a strategic technology reserve (STR) will be established and implemented to 

pre-position or secure interoperable communications in advance for immediate deployment 

in an emergency or major disaster. 

11.3 Describe how local and tribal government entities' interoperable communications needs 

have been included in the planning process and how their needs are being addressed. 

11.4 Describe how authorized non-governmental organizations' interoperable communications 

needs have been included in the planning process and how their needs are being addressed 

(if applicable). 


` 

B. Background Information 

Office of Emergency Communications 

In the DHS Appropriations Act for FY 2007 (Public Law 109–295, Oct. 4, 2006), Congress 

established OEC to promote the ability of emergency responders and government officials to 

continue to communicate in the event of a natural disaster, act of terrorism, or other man-made 

disasters, and to ensure, accelerate, and attain interoperable and operable emergency 

communications nationwide. The OEC Office of the Director was established within the DHS’s 

National Protection and Programs Directorate to oversee the transition of three programs from 

other DHS entities into OEC—the Integrated Wireless Network (IWN), the Interoperable 

Communications Technical Assistance Program (ICTAP), and the SAFECOM program 

(excluding its research, development, testing and evaluation, and standards functions which 

remained with the Office for Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC) in the Science and 

Technology directorate). 37 

OEC recognizes that the development of a successful solution to improve interoperable 

communications requires a practitioner-driven focus on user needs. The input of both 

practitioners and policy makers across disciplines, jurisdictions, and levels of government, who 

are able to represent their own needs and to strategically approach the greater needs of the 

emergency response community, is essential for interoperable communications. 

Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grants 

The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-171, Feb. 8, 2006) provided $1 billion in 

grants to improve interoperable communications. In December 2006, Congress passed the Call 

Home Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-459, Dec. 22, 2006), which in part required the Assistant 

Secretary of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to award 

this $1 billion for the Public Safety Interoperable Communications (PSIC) Grant Program. 

NTIA, in consultation with DHS, developed grant program policies, procedures, and regulations 

for these grants. Shortly thereafter, Section I.C.5 of the 2006 HSGP stipulated that all States were 

required to develop and adopt SCIPs by December 2007 as a stipulation to receive any future 

Federal funding for public safety communications. DHS jointly held peer reviews of the SCIPs 

and PSIC Investment Justifications and reported back to the States on the comments and 

necessary upgrades. 

37 DHS’s SAFECOM program, in conjunction with its Federal partners, provides research, guidance, tools, 

and templates on communications-related issues to Federal, State, local, and tribal emergency response 

agencies. Since its inception, the SAFECOM program has operated under the principle that any successful 

effort to improve emergency response communications interoperability must take into account the direct 

needs of emergency responders on the front lines in large, small, rural, and urban communities across the 

Nation. All non-research and development aspects of the SAFECOM program were incorporated into OEC 

through Title XVIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended. SAFECOM’s authorities related 

to research, development, testing, evaluation, and standards remain in the Office for Interoperability and 

Compatibility (OIC) in DHS’s Science and Technology Directorate. 


` 

C. Supporting Plans and Reports 

OEC is responsible for several new initiatives and coordinated efforts to enhance interoperability. 

Each of the following plans and reports has an individual purpose to improve communications 

interoperability and inform specific audiences, and each initiative is linked to each other. A 

summary of the initiatives is provided below. 

National Emergency Communications Plan 

As required by Congress in the DHS Appropriations Act for FY 2007, OEC developed the NECP 

to address nationwide gaps and determine solutions so that emergency response personnel at all 

levels of government and across all disciplines can communicate as needed, on demand, and as 

authorized. The NECP is the Nation’s first strategic plan to improve emergency response 

communications, and complements overarching homeland security and emergency 

communications legislation, strategies, and initiatives. The NECP leveraged information 

gathered from the SCIPs, TICPs, and the NCCR to identify gaps and priority initiatives for 

emergency communications nationwide. Furthermore, it provides overarching national goals and 

priorities to improve operability, interoperability, and continuity of communications within the 

Federal, State, local, and tribal emergency response communities. The NECP was released to 

Congress in July 2008. 

Figure C.1: National Emergency Communications Plan Overview 

The NECP was developed in coordination with the emergency response community, other 

government officials, and industry representatives as part of OEC’s practitioner-driven approach 

to addressing emergency communications issues. OEC developed the NECP Working Group to 

provide practitioner input into the NECP. The Working Group vetted draft goals and initiatives, 

and came to consensus on the following key components: 


` 

• Expand the level of coordination and outreach between Federal, State, local, and tribal 

emergency response providers through enhanced, common, and formal governance 

structures and leadership positions. 

• Promote common planning and operational protocols to ensure efficient and consistent 

use of resources. 

• Promote common approaches to training, exercises, and technical assistance to better 

equip emergency response personnel. 

• Enhance system functionality, security, redundancy, and performance. 

• Promote research and development (R&D), standards, testing, and evaluation within the 

public and private sectors focusing on technologies and capabilities that will meet 

evolving emergency communications needs. 

• Gain cultural buy-in, political support, and sustained funding to enhance the usage of 

emergency communications. 

For more information or to read the NECP, please refer to the SAFECOM website at 

http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/natlemergencycommplan/. 

National Communications Capability Report 

As also required by Congress in the DHS Appropriations Act for FY 2007, OEC conducted an 

assessment of interoperable emergency communications capabilities, including operability and 

interoperability, across all levels of government (i.e., Federal, State, local, and tribal). 38 To 

compile the NCCR, OEC leveraged information from past assessments, enhanced by targeted 

interviews with Federal and local emergency response stakeholders, to show preliminary findings 

related to interoperability and operability assurance capabilities. OEC also collected a broader 

sample of Federal and local agency information to validate the initial findings and incorporated 

State and tribal data from ongoing collection activities (i.e., the SCIP program), and expanded the 

scope of emergency response providers beyond government agencies to include private sector 

entities. The NCCR compiles all of these findings to provide a comprehensive assessment on the 

state of interoperable emergency communications. 

The NCCR provides a framework to evaluate current emergency communications capabilities 

across all levels of government. The report was delivered to Congress in the Spring of 2008 and 

will assist government officials at all levels to determine priorities and allocate resources more 

effectively. 

The NCCR provides a snapshot of interoperable emergency communications capabilities 

nationwide. This includes: 

• An understanding of emergency response capabilities needed and in use. 

• Gaps between those capabilities and what is required. 

• An inventory of Federal, State, and local systems and equipment currently being used. 

• Relevant government initiatives and documentation. 

Figure C.2 below provides an overview sample of capability needs across each element as 

mapped to the Capabilities Assessment Framework and the Interoperability Continuum. 

38 The National Communications Capability Report, Final Results. May 2008. 


` 

Figure C.2: Capabilities Needs Chart 

Urban Areas and Tactical Interoperable Communications Plans 

In support of DHS’s effort to strengthen interoperable communications capabilities and processes, 

each Urban Area that received FY 2005 UASI funding (as well as designated metropolitan areas 

in States not having a UASI) was required to develop a TICP. Unlike the SCIPs, which focus on 

strategic planning, the TICPs focused on the tactical and operational requirements for rapidly 

establishing on-scene, incident-based mission critical voice communications. TICPs document 

the interoperable communications resources available within the designated area, who controls 

each resource, and what rules of use or operational procedures exist for the activation and 

deactivation of each resource. The typical contents of TICPs include: 

• An overview of the jurisdictions covered by the plan. 

• Description of the governance structure(s) in place. 

• Information on available interoperability resources, policies, and procedures. 

• Regional emergency resource staffing. 

• Usage of the CASM tool. 

TICPs serve as a centralized single repository of valuable tactical interoperability information for 

the geographical areas covered by the plan. The objective is to establish interoperability among 

all emergency responder agencies and support Incident Command and Operations Section 

personnel within one hour of a relevant incident. Many States and jurisdictions used CASM to 

conduct, document, and update communications capabilities assessments. For this reason, CASM 

is closely tied to the TICP planning process, and can be used to generate data for the portion of 

the TICPs covering interoperability equipment and resources. 

ICTAP conducted a comprehensive review process of the TICPs and prepared TICP Scorecards 

for each UASI. The TICP Scorecard evaluations focused on the governance, SOPs, and usage 

lane elements of the Interoperability Continuum. The TICP Scorecard results clearly 

demonstrated the progress being made by urban/metropolitan areas in their tactical interoperable 


` 

communications capabilities. Since their preparation, many States began developing statewide 

TICPs or TICPs for other regions within their States. Additionally, UASI coordinators were 

involved in the SCIP preparation process and TICP initiatives are being integrated into the State 

SCIPs. 


` 

D. NECP Initiatives 

Through the collection and analysis of these initiatives combined with other relevant data, OEC 

developed supporting initiatives to address the Nation’s needs in the NECP. The NECP provides 

recommended initiatives to guide emergency response providers and relevant government 

officials in making measurable improvements in emergency communications capabilities. The 

recommendations help guide homeland security funds to improve emergency communications at 

the Federal, State, and local levels and to support the implementation of the NECP. 39 

Governance 

The NECP identified the following emergency communications capabilities as key to establishing 

successful governance structures: 

• Strong multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional government leadership 

• Formal, thorough, and inclusive interagency governance structures 

• Clear lines of communication and decision-making 

• Strategic planning processes 

• Adequate funding and budgeting to cover not only initial system and equipment 

investment, but for the entire life cycle (operations, exercising, and maintenance). 

• Increased budgetary support for emergency communications from State and local 

governments 

• Broad regional (inter- and intra-State) coordination in technology investment and 

procurement planning 

The NECP also identified seven objectives to improve emergency communications for responders 

across the Nation. The following two objectives involve immediate dependency on successful 

governance for statewide communications interoperability: 

1. Formal decision-making structures and clearly defined leadership roles coordinate 

emergency communications capabilities 

2. All levels of government drive long-term advancements in emergency communications 

through integrated strategic planning procedures, sustained funding approaches, and 

public-private partnerships 

Listed below are the NECP initiatives developed to overcome the governance gaps identified in 

the SCIPs. 

• Initiative 1.1: Facilitate the development of effective governance groups and 

designated emergency communications leadership roles. Uniform criteria and best 

practices for governance and emergency communications leadership across the Nation 

will better equip emergency response agencies to make informed decisions that meet the 

needs of their communities. Effective leadership positions and representative governance 

groups nationwide will standardize decision-making processes and increase the ability of 

emergency response agencies to share information and respond to incidents. 

• Initiative 1.3: Integrate strategic and tactical emergency communications planning 

efforts across all levels of government. Tactical and strategic coordination will 

39 National Emergency Communications Plan. 


` 

eliminate unnecessary duplication of effort and maximize inter-agency synchronization, 

bringing tactical response together with strategic planning. 

• Initiative 2.5: Establish interoperability capabilities and coordination 

between domestic and international partners. Emergencies occurring near 

international borders often require a bi-national response, necessitating interoperability 

with international partners. These countries often have different technical configurations 

and regulatory statutes than the United States. Coordination is essential to ensure that 

domestic and international legal and regulatory requirements are followed. 

Standard Operating Procedures 

The NECP identified the following capabilities necessary for successful, organized, and 

operational SOPs: 

• Standardized and uniform emergency responder interaction during emergency response 

operations 

• Standardized use and application of interoperable emergency communications 

terminology, solutions, and backup systems 

The plan also identified the following objective involves immediate dependency on successful 

SOPs for Statewide communications interoperability: 

• Emergency responders employ common planning and operational protocols to effectively 

utilize their resources and personnel 

Listed below are the NECP initiatives developed to overcome the SOP gaps identified throughout 

the SCIPs: 

• Initiative 3.1: Standardize and implement common operational protocols and 

procedures. A national adoption of plain language radio practices and uniform common 

channel naming, along with the programming and use of existing national interoperability 

channels, will allow agencies across all disciplines to effectively share information on 

demand and in real time. Common operational protocols and procedures avoid the 

confusion that disparate coded language systems and various tactical interoperability 

frequencies can create during mutual aid. Use of the existing nationwide interoperability 

channels with common naming will immediately address interoperability requirements 

for agencies operating in the same frequency band. 40 

• Initiative 3.2: Fully implement the NIMS and the NRF across all levels of 

government. Emergency response agencies across all levels of government should adopt 

and implement national-level policies and guidance to ensure a common approach to 

incident management and communications support. Implementation of these policies 

40 National Telecommunication and Information Administration (NTIA) and the members of the 

Interdepartmental Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC), with support from the FCC, revised the NTIA 

Manual of Regulations and Procedures for Federal Radio Frequency Management. NTIA amended the 

“Conditions for Use” and eliminated the requirement for an MOU between the non-Federal and Federal 

entities for use of the law enforcement (LE) and IR channels. The new conditions do, however, require 

the non-Federal entity to obtain a license and provide a point of contact for inclusion in the license 

application submitted to the FCC for use of the LE/IR channels. 


` 

will establish clearly defined communications roles and responsibilities and enable 

integration of all communications elements as the Incident Command Structure expands 

from the incident to the national level. 

• Initiative 3.3: Develop and implement model SOPs for specific events and allhazards 

response. The range of informal and formal practices and procedures that guide 

emergency responder interactions and the use of interoperable emergency 

communications solutions comprise SOPs. Agencies should develop, coordinate, and 

share best practices and procedures that encompass both operational and technical 

components. Command and control protocols should be NIMS-compliant, incorporating 

ICS as an operational guide. Procedures for the activation, deployment, and deactivation 

of technical resources should be included, as well as roles and responsibilities for 

operation, management, recovery, and continuity of equipment and infrastructure during 

an event. Agencies should identify procedures used to trigger and implement backup 

communications solutions in the event that primary systems and solutions become 

unavailable. As the scale of an event expands, procedures for the integration of 

communications solutions become increasingly critical. Agencies must institute 

processes by which policies, practices, and procedures are regularly developed and 

reviewed for consistency across agencies. 

• Initiative 7.1: Provide an integration framework for disaster communications 

operations and response to ensure that the Federal Government can effectively 

fulfill requests during incident response. Although disaster communications 

capabilities are owned by many agencies and private sector entities, there is currently a 

limited understanding of how these capabilities would be integrated during operations. 

As evidenced by Hurricane Katrina, deployable assets were in use across the operations 

areas but there was limited coordination, and a common operating picture was not 

available to senior leaders across government. 

Technology 

The NECP also identifies the following technical capabilities needed to achieve the national 

vision: 

• Voice and data standards that pertain to real-time situational information exchange and 

reports for emergency responders before, during, and after response 

• Uniform model and standard for emergency data information exchange 

• Testing and evaluation of emergency communications technology to help agencies make 

informed decisions about technology 

• Public safety communications technology based on open standards 

• Basic level of communications systems operability 

The Plan identifies the following three technology objectives to improve emergency 

communications for responders across the Nation: 

1. Standards and Emerging Communication Technologies: Emerging technologies are 

integrated with current emergency communications capabilities through standards 

implementation, research and development, testing and evaluation 


` 

2. System Life-Cycle Planning: All levels of government drive long-term advancements 

in emergency communications through integrated strategic planning procedures, 

appropriate resource allocations, and public-private partnerships 

3. Disaster Communications Capabilities: The Nation has integrated preparedness, 

mitigation, response, and recovery capabilities to communicate during significant 

events 

Listed below are NECP initiatives, developed to achieve the national objectives, which may 

impact SCIP plans: 

• Initiative 4.1: Adopt standards for voice and data emergency response capabilities. 

Standards will enable agencies to make informed procurement decisions and benefit from 

emerging technologies. Compliance assessment programs provide a documented 

certification process for communications equipment and programs. 

• Initiative 4.3: Transition and/or integrate legacy systems with open architecture and 

next generation technologies. Transitioning to open architecture and next generation 

technologies will allow emergency response agencies a greater ease of usage, 

functionality, and capabilities. The upcoming FCC narrowbanding deadline calls for 

non-Federal emergency response agencies operating in frequencies below 512 MHz to 

transition from 25 kilohertz (kHz) to 12.5 kHz channels in 2013 to ensure spectrum 

efficiency. Federal grants can facilitate the migration and transition from legacy to 

approved open architecture and next generation systems. 

• Initiative 4.4: Implement the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) for Federal 

responders. A standard nationwide encryption method will diminish the interoperability 

challenges faced by Federal responders (who previously used different methods) and will 

provide guidance to local and State agencies when working with Federal agencies. 

• Initiative 6.1: Conduct system life-cycle planning to better forecast long-term 

funding requirements. Providing planning and business case best practices through 

technical assistance will enable leadership to project the true cost of sustaining its 

communications system and allow budgeting for maintenance and eventual replacement. 

Grant funding authorizations from states and the Federal Government should be 

prioritized to support cooperative, regional (intra-state or inter-state) system planning 

efforts. 

• Initiative 6.2: Expand the use of public and private sector partnerships related to 

emergency communications. While the private sector owns more than 85 percent of 

critical infrastructure, government and public safety agencies own and operate 

communications systems that support their critical missions, including defense, law 

enforcement, and public safety. The private sector’s capabilities include fixed, mobile, 

and rapidly deployable networks, assets, and facilities that can help ensure the success of 

emergency communications. A more formal understanding of the specific service 

offerings and capabilities of private sector organizations is required to better leverage 

existing and future communications capabilities. 

• Initiative 6.4: Enhance emergency communications system survivability by using 

redundant and resilient system design. Disaster events can adversely affect the 

performance of the communications systems that agencies use for emergency response. 

Emergency response agencies must identify the events that can disrupt the 


` 

communications system components (e.g., radio repeaters, backhaul circuits, power 

systems) and develop plans to enhance survivability. Implementing redundant 

infrastructure, developing resilience strategies, identifying recovery time objectives, and 

exercising communications continuity plans will improve communications system 

survivability 

• Initiative 7.1: Provide an integration framework for disaster communications 

operations and response to ensure that the Federal Government can effectively 

fulfill requests during incident response. Although disaster communications 

capabilities are owned by many agencies and private sector entities, there is currently a 

limited understanding of how these capabilities would be integrated during operations. 

Following Hurricane Katrina, deployable assets were in use across the operations areas, 

but there was limited coordination. In addition, a common operating picture was not 

available to senior leaders across government. 

• Initiative 7.2: Implement disaster communications planning and preparedness 

activities. Identifying critical communications vulnerabilities and developing mitigation 

strategies is important for all agencies with operational responsibilities during major 

events. Agencies should evaluate the readiness posture of communications centers (e.g., 

Public Safety Answering Points [PSAP]) and emergency response and commercial 

networks that may be vulnerable to weather damage, flooding, and man-made disasters. 

The vulnerabilities identified should be a primary focus of disaster planning and 

preparedness activities. System planning activities should account for the availability of 

alternative and backup communications solutions and redundant pathways (i.e., provided 

by different vendors) to support communications if primary capabilities become 

unavailable. 

• Initiative 7.3: Leverage existing and emerging technologies to expand and integrate 

disaster communications capabilities among emergency response providers. 

Deployable communications technologies can provide robust voice, video, and data 

capability for agencies requiring communications during disasters. Packaging these 

capabilities to be quickly deployable and easily integrated and interoperable is a 

significant hurdle. DHS will work across the government and private sector to enable 

more effective pre-positioning and integration of existing and cutting edge technologies. 

• Initiative 7.6: Promote the use of and expand the capabilities of priority services 

programs (e.g., GETS, WPS, and TSP) to next-generation networks. Priority access 

services are critical to the ability of emergency responders to access telecommunications 

resources during an event. Major events result in high-level use of telecommunications 

resources by emergency responders and the public. It is critical that emergency response 

providers have access to telecommunications resources when needed to enable 

information exchange. Currently, the National Communications System sponsors several 

priority access services (i.e., GETS, TSP, and WPS) that are available for use by Federal, 

State, local, and tribal agencies. Based on mission requirements, agencies across levels of 

government should leverage these services to ensure access to telecommunications 

resources when needed. In addition, planning is needed to ensure the availability of these 

services as networks transition to next-generation technologies. 

Training and Exercises 

The NECP identified the following capabilities needed to achieve a nationwide future state of 

advanced communications interoperability: 


` 

• Uniform, standardized performance objectives to measure effectiveness of emergency 

responders communications capabilities 

• Emergency response providers who are fully knowledgeable, trained, and exercised on 

the use and application of day-to-day and backup communications equipment, systems, 

and operations irrespective of the size of the emergency response 

The NECP also identified the following two objectives involve immediate dependency on 

successful training and exercise programs: 

1. Emergency responders have shared approaches to training and exercises, improved 

technical expertise and enhanced response capabilities 

2. The Nation has integrated preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery capabilities 

to communicate during significant events 

In identifying these necessary capabilities and objectives, the NECP is seeking to build upon the 

interoperability progress we have already made as a Nation. OEC is responsible for ensuring that 

Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program (IECGP) funding is consistent with the 

SCIPs and with the NECP. OEC also encourages all States to align with the objectives, 

initiatives, and capabilities defined in the NECP. 

HSEEP also provides information to consider when creating training and exercise programs to 

achieve a future state of complete interoperability throughout the Nation. States were encouraged 

to visit the HSEEP website (https://hseep.dhs.gov) while in the development process of the 

SCIPs, and are encouraged to continue visiting the website. 

Listed below are the NECP initiatives developed to overcome the training and exercises gaps 

identified in the SCIPs: 

• Initiative 5.1: Develop and implement national training programs and certification 

processes. Standardized training programs should be established to deliver regular 

training to all emergency responders to build knowledge and competency; across 

disciplines, jurisdictions, and levels of government; and with key private sector 

organizations as appropriate. These programs should also be evaluated regularly to 

determine their effectiveness and impact on performance and proficiency levels, and to 

ensure that existing content remains valid and new content is incorporated as appropriate. 

• Initiative 5.2: Develop and inject standardized emergency communications 

performance objectives and evaluation criteria into operational exercises. 

Incorporating standardized objectives and evaluation criteria into exercise programs will 

ensure consistent evaluation of communications performance. By evaluating 

communications as part of operational exercises, leadership gains an increased awareness 

of communications gaps. This understanding will ensure communications needs are 

prioritized appropriately. 

• Initiative 5.3: Provide targeted training to improve skills and capabilities of 

technical staff. Though most technicians receive formal communications training at the 

start of their careers and through informal on-the-job training, ongoing or refresher 

training is not commonly provided due to an insufficient number of qualified subject 

matter experts. Developing training programs for technical staff will increase not only 

the number but the expertise of technical and operational resources.

National Summary of Statewide Communication Interoperability Plans

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?